|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 78 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 394 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... peals are kept pending before the Tribunal and nothing should be employed as detracting from jurisdiction of the Tribunal and in view of the aforesaid decision, it is abundantly clear that the appeals filed by the petitioners are still pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal and admittedly, in the aforesaid appeals, this question is also involved as to whether petitioners had clandestinely removed the goods in question or not. So, in my view, to avoid the contradictory decisions of the court, further proceedings of Complaint case no. 378C/2008 should be stayed till final decision of the reference application pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta 21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition stands disposed off with direction to the learned Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna that he shall not pronounce judgment in Complaint case no. 378C/2008 till final decision of the reference pending before the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in CEXA 3 of 2001.
-
2012 (1) TMI 368 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. Dismissed on facts only.
-
2012 (1) TMI 355 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... endered by this Court in Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (supra), the Revenue had preferred a petition for special leave to appeal. That petition has since been dismissed and is mentioned in 2011 (269) E.L.T. A147. The Supreme Court also observed that similar matter have already been dismissed by the Supreme Court on an earlier occasion. 3. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 349 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... nds assailed on the point of limitation in as much as the demand for the period 1.11.04 to 31.03.07 was raised by the issuance of SCN dtd. 31.03.08. Ld. Advocate submits that though they have advanced submission on the point of limitation, the Commissioner in his impugned order has not taken the same into consideration and has not given any finding on their plea of limitation. As such he prays for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to adjudicating authority for deciding the plea of limitation. 3. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue agrees on the above course of action suggested by the ld. Advocate. 4. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for deciding the issue of limitation and consequent penalty. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity of putting their defence and principles of natural justice. 5. All the appeals stands allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 347 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Act. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 4. The Revenue submitted that Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) held that the assessees are liable to pay duty of excise under Section 3 of the Act or under any other provisions contemplated for the same. 5. In view of the above decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, where the Hon ble High Court held that the rules under which the present demand is made are held to be ultra wires and held that the assessee is liable to pay duty under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under any other provisions of law. 6. In view of the above decision the impugned order is set aside after waiving the condition pre-deposit of the dues and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh in view of the Hon ble Madras High Court s decision in the case of Beauty Dyers (supra) after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. 7. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2012 (1) TMI 326 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... sad, JJ. ORDER Delay condoned. Dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 323 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of remand order - demand of duty jointly upon the offenders and direction to fix separate/individual liability of each of the offenders including the respondent when jointly omission and commission of the offenders in perpetuating the fraud and causing loss of revenue are intermingled - fraudulent availment of rebate - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in remanding case of the respondent back to the adjudicating Commissioner to arrive at finding of liability of individuals as regards the duty is concerned?
Held that:- The Tribunal after detailed consideration of the submission had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority following its own earlier decision in the case of this very respondent assessee - the Commissioner had confirmed the demand against the respondents and others jointly and severally. That was the reason why the Tribunal had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner.
There is no illegality in remand orders - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 322 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 315 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in absence of any direct and positive evidence establishing charges of clandestine removal by Messrs Chetna Zarda Company in connivance with Messrs Kripa Tobacco Marketing, it found no substance in the version of the Revenue and it held the order-in-original to have been based on surmises and conjectures. 8. The order of levying of penalty on the partner and others was consequential in nature. When the very basis on which this penalty was levied is demolished by not believing the clandestine removal by Messrs Chetna Zarda Company without any invoice and the sale is believed to have been made officially, the consequential order of penalty shall need to be quashed. Moreover, as can be noted from the discussion hereinabove, there is hardly any question of law arising in this appeal. Further, in absence of any illegality or perversity in the order of the Tribunal, the present Tax Appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 314 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... confiscation. 7. As the Tribunal did not find these allegations having been proved against M/s. Chetna Zarda Company and others, imposition of penalty qua this agency is also deleted. The impugned order, though has been challenged by the Revenue by way of the present tax appeal, there is nothing pointed out to assail such an order of the Tribunal. As can be also further noted, there is no whisper as far as the present assessee-respondent is concerned in the evidence which were discussed by the Tribunal. Again, as can be noted from the orders of the adjudicating authorities, the role attributed to the assessee-respondent has not been believed by the Tribunal, for want of requisite material. 8. The entire issue is in the realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law is before us for it to entertain the present tax appeal. Resultantly, the present tax appeal fails and is dismissed. The order of deletion of penalty requires no interference.
-
2012 (1) TMI 307 - SC ORDER
Stay of judgement - the decision in the case of VVF LTD. & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1 [2010 (3) TMI 1191 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] sought to be stayed - Held that: - we direct that operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed till further orders, subject to the petitioners' releasing to the respondents 50% of the amount due to them in terms of the impugned judgment on the respondents' furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Commissioner, within four weeks of their furnishing the said surety - petition disposed off.
-
2012 (1) TMI 301 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... it was drawn with stolen property to hold that a genuine purchaser of stolen property cannot claim ownership even if he purchased the same without the knowledge of same being a stolen one. The said order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat, vide order dated 23-7-2008 (Tax Appeal No. 197/2008) 2008 (232) E.L.T. 408 (Guj.) . 8. On the basis of discussions and findings above, along with the legal pronouncements we do not have a scintilla of doubt that the appellant had fraudulently availed Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 1,38,56,462/- and utilized an amount of ₹ 1,19,95,747/- and the balance amount requires to be disallowed. Shri Krishanakumar Kachurulal Gupta, Prop rietor of M/s. Maruti Enterprises is therefore liable to pay interest and penalty. 9. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by Shri Krishanakumar Kachurulal Gupta (Shri Kishan Kachurulal Gupta) and uphold the Order-in-Original. (Pronounced in Court on 18-1-2012)
-
2012 (1) TMI 281 - SC ORDER
Demand of duty - assessee had willfully suppressed and mis-stated the facts to the Department - there was a bona fide doubt on the payment of duty - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE-II Versus ITC LIMITED [2010 (7) TMI 331 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that it cannot be said that there was suppression of facts or any wilful intention to evade duty - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 247 - SC ORDER
Valuation - MRP based valuation- Chewing tobacco in 5 gms in 9 gms pouches cleared in bulk packs - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ROHTAK Versus GUPTA TOBACCO CO. [2009 (9) TMI 492 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] contested where it was held that goods sold by weight only and net weight being less than 10 gms, not covered under Standards of Weights and Measurements (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 - Held that: - In view of the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kraftech Products Inc. [(2008) 12 SCC 321], where it was held that Multi peace package of 3 pouches of 3 gms each, provisions of MRP not applicable and valuation is do be done u/s 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 , nothing survives for our consideration in this appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 236 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ch MRP the differential duty shall be worked out on Revised MRP from 1.6.2007 to 31.3.2008 and on the basis thereof, the interest & fine shall be also worked out for being levied on the petitioner, if found necessary by the Commission. 19. It is being further clarified that unlike in previously adjudicated petitions, respondent herein has chosen not to challenge the decision of Settlement Commission. Nothing observed hereinabove shall influence the Settlement Commission in adjudicating the issue presented before it independently, and also pass necessary order with regard to fine etc. if the Commission so deems it fit. 20. Consequently immunity otherwise available from the prosecution under the Central Excise Act shall continue in case of the present respondent, who has neither challenged the impugned order of the Settlement Commission nor has challenged the present petition objecting to such conclusion. Rule is made absolute to the above extent with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 230 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 10. Firstly this Court in the said decision did not decide the issue of interest. Second, it only said that writ petitioner would be entitled to pursue their remedies to seek refund, etc. under the Act in accordance with law. Thirdly, the writ petitioner did claim the refund of duty and the same was awarded to them by order dated 30-8-2007 referred supra amounting to ₹ 26,80,834/- and accordingly, the principal amount quantified on refund of duty was paid within time rather immediately. Under these circumstances, the question of payment of interest on such payment did not arise. Since the claim under the Act itself was not tenable and hence, it could not be entertained in the writ petition also. In other words, it was bad under the Act so also under the writ jurisdiction. 11. In the light of foregoing discussion, the writ petition is totally found to be devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 12. No Cost.
-
2012 (1) TMI 213 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... period of fifteen days to the petitioner. 2. The respondent had also seized ₹ 42 lacs at the time of search. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Abhishek Fashions Private Limited v. Union of India, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 762 (Guj.) and States that as per Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the respondent-Revenue was required to issue show cause notice. Learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue submits that show cause notice has already been issued and proceedings are pending. This is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to pass any order for refund of ₹ 42 lacs at this stage. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent further States that the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice are being taken up expeditiously. She does not have any grievance in this regard. 4. In terms of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is disposed of.
-
2012 (1) TMI 201 - SC ORDER
Jurisdictional issue pertaining to the Committee – Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh, had by his order dated 23-4-2008 dropped all the charges brought against M/s. Kothari Products Ltdand consequentially allowed its products to be cleared from the factory - Members of the Committee on a consideration of the materials on record, adjudged the said decision of the Commissioner and directed him (Commissioner of Central Excise, Dibrugarh) to apply to the Tribunal for a correct determination of the points as enumerated in its order dated 24-7-2008 – Respondents preferred against the decision dated 24-7-2008 of the Committee, questioned its (Committee) jurisdiction and authority contending that the composition thereof was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 35(1B) of the Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder – According to them, two members thereof namely Shri Rajendra Prasad who acted as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, and Shri Hrishikesh Sharan who did so as Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, had no locus standi to discharge their said roles as the necessary notification under Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to that effect which is obligatory, had not been issued.
-
2012 (1) TMI 194 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - retail sale price - clearances made to exports - cement bags - whether retail sale price is required to be written on the cement bags in terms of Standard Weight & Measurement Act, 1976? - Held that: - the identical issue stands dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. [2011 (11) TMI 717 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the Sl.No.1 (C) of the Notification would be proper serial number for payment of duty in respect of the cement cleared for export - condition of pre-deposit dispensed with - petition allowed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pellant that in the case of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore v. M/s. Shree Krishna Pipes Industries, the order passed by the Appellate Authority in reducing the interest and penalty was illegal and without jurisdiction. This Court had confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. The appellant had preferred Civil Appeal No. 5930/2008. The Supreme Court in the connected appeals involving the similar substantial questions, in the case of Union of India and Others v. Darmendra Textile Processors and Others reported in 2008 AIR SCW 8038 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), while disposing of other batch of connected appeals including Civil Appeal No. 5930/2008 in the case of M/s. Shree Krishna Pipe Industries, has held that the Authorities have no discretion in the matter of imposition of penalty. 3. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority (CESTAT) in reducing the penalty and interest is bad in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
|
