TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lone was enough to hold that GTC had gained at the cost of Revenue controlling the MRP and realised sale proceeds over and above the MRP declared - appellant was duty bound to deposit the amount of excise duty determined by CESTAT within a period of three months from the 25.04.2011, if it was interested in pursuing the present appeals - Since the appellant has failed to do so, the inevitably result of such failure is the dismissal of these appeals - grievance cannot be gone into by this Court, since the entire controversy has been settled by the Supreme Court as is evident from the above extract - appeals are accordingly disposed of. - CEAC No. 18/2011, 21/2011 and 22/2011 - - - Dated:- 18-10-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat and R.V. Easwar, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cigarettes." 2. The Revenue is in appeal in all these three cases contending that the liability is that of GTC Industries Ltd. and not just of two units. 3. The assessees i.e. GTC Industries Ltd. and other two units KCPL and JKCL were also aggrieved and preferred separate civil appeals in Supreme Court being Civil Appeal Nos.1466/2011, 1468/2011 and 1469/2011. The Supreme Court directed the pre-deposit of the excise duty by an order which was not complied with. In these circumstances, the Court rejected the appeals in the following terms:- "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2011 And 1468-1469 OF 2011 M/S GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. (NOW GOLDEN TOB.) Versus COLLECTO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had gained at the cost of Revenue as it was controlling the MRP and had realised sale proceeds over and above the said price. Para 34.7 of the CESTAT Order reads as under:- "Shri Parasaran also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of New Horizons Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India and Others, 1995 (1) SCC 478 to argue that the Courts can always see through corporate veil to ascertain the true nature of the company. Doctrine of lifting veil, piercing the veil, peeping or seeing through the veil is invoked when the corporate personality is found to be opposed to justice, convenience or interest of Revenue. We do agree with him that Courts come to rescue of Revenue where subterfuge to it is caused inside corporate veil. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
