GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
What's New Case Laws Highlights Articles News Forum Short Notes Statutory TMI SMS More ...
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 788 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 788 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - 2015 (323) E.L.T. 515 (Mad.) - Validity of Tribunal's order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Held that:- Tribunal does not consider the decisions of the Supreme Court, based on which the Original Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have held in favour of the assessee and there is no discussion on merits on the decision rendered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, the final fact finding Author .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of 2015 - Dated:- 25-6-2015 - R. Sudhakar And K. B. K. Vasuki, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. G Derrick Sam For the Respondent : Mr. A P Srinivas - R1 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the assessee as against the order passed by the Tribunal raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in passing Final Order in the appeal without hearing the counsel of the appellant company and thereby violating the princ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al before the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Commissioner Vs. Nebulae Healthcare Ltd. [2008 (221) ELT A82 (SC)]?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of goods, falling under Chapter sub-heading 3922.90 and 3923.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee availed the benefit of Notification No.8/99 dated 28.2.1999 in respect of goods falling under chapter sub-heading 3922.20, which are beari .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sion was sought to be withdrawn vide Show Cause Notice dated 3.5.2000 with consequential demand of differential duty of ₹ 7,02,609/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Adjudicating Authority, after due process of law, dropped the proceedings initiated against the assessee. Aggrieved by the said order of adjudication, the Revenue preferred review before the Commissioner of Central Excise for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner passed an o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ecision of the Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. I also find that a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. held that: Insofar as the availing of Modvat credits and the full exemption under small scale exemption Notification on different specified goods is concerned, the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 1993 (63) ELT 759 (Trib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ent goods, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court by virtue of doctrine of merger. In this case, the Tribunal also considered the availment of modvat facility as well as full exemption simultaneously in the case of same specified goods. The Tribunal said drawing the similar analogy, we consider that subject to the reversal of the modvat credit taken with regard to the inputs which were utilised for the manufacture of duty free goods, the manufacturer could avail of the modvat credit as well as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rned from time to time for various reasons, the details of which are extracted below: Date of hearing Order 20.7.2009 Adjourned to 08.10.09. Issue notice 08.10.2009 No Bench Sitting Adjourned To 9.12.09. Issue notice. 9.12.2009 Adjourned to 9.2.10. 9.02.2010 No Bench Sitting Adjourned to 7.4.10 7.4.10 Adjourned to 4.5.10 at the request of the counsel 4.5.10 Adjourned to 24.8.10 to await Apex Court decision in Nebulae Health Care. 24.8.10 Adjd. To 19.10.10 at the request of the counsel 19.10.10 N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

partment holding as follows: 2. The question involved in this case is whether the respondents can avail Cenvat Credit as well as full exemption under the SSI exemption scheme in respect of same goods. The issue now seems to be no longer res integra, as it has been given a finality by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Admedabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products reported in 2004 (174) ELT 310 (S.C). In the said case, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would not be pos .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

al holding that the respondent assessees are not entitled to simultaneous availment of Cenvat credit and full exemption under the SSI scheme. Hence, consequently, the demand of duty raised in the Show Cause Notice to the extent of ₹ 7,02,609/- is confirmed along with interest as payable under the law. However, considering the disputed nature of the issue, it is ordered that no penalty be imposed on the respondent-assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant/asses .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that there is a bereavement in the family of Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, learned counsel on record and that he had gone to Trivandrum. The said junior counsel has filed an affidavit before us to this effect and supporting document, namely, travel tickets of Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan evidencing the travel. This is enclosed as document in page Nos.88 to 91 of the typed set of papers before us. He also submits that the case was adjourned from time to time for various reasons and not due to the non-cooperat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aused. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order of the Tribunal. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials placed before this Court. 9. The short issue that the learned counsel for the appellant pleads is that no opportunity has been given by the Tribunal to the assessee to address the case and therefore great prejudice is caused. We find from the copy of the not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Latest Notifications:

    Dated      Category

20-7-2017 Cus (NT)

20-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

19-7-2017 IT

19-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 IT

18-7-2017 CE (NT)

18-7-2017 CE

18-7-2017 GST CESS Rate

15-7-2017 Kerala SGST

14-7-2017 Andhra Pradesh SGST

14-7-2017 Cus (NT)

14-7-2017 Cus

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 Co. Law

13-7-2017 ADD

13-7-2017 ADD

12-7-2017 Jammu & Kashmir SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 Gujarat SGST

12-7-2017 CGST Rate

More Notifications


Latest Circulars:

19-7-2017 Goods and Services Tax

19-7-2017 Income Tax

18-7-2017 Customs

17-7-2017 Customs

14-7-2017 Income Tax

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

13-7-2017 Central Excise

13-7-2017 Customs

7-7-2017 Income Tax

More Circulars



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version