Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax Versus Firomenich Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.

2015 (9) TMI 813 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Demand for interest and penalty Delay in service of notice Show cause notice came to be issued to Respondent calling upon it to show cause as to why interest and penalty should not be demanded Adjudicating authority confirmed issue and imposed penalty Respondents thereafter preferred appeal before tribunal which is allowed by impugned order Held that:- Demand for interest pertains to dues which were paid on various dates Clearly seen that there is delay of more than three years from .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.S. Rao For the Respondent : None ORDER P.C. : The Appellant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CESTAT, Ahmedabad dated 27th December 2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent who had in turn challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Daman. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Appeal are as under : It was found in the audit that during the period 2001-02 the Respondent had wa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore the Commissioner (Appeals). By order dated 1st February, 2008 the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Respondents. The Respondents thereafter preferred an appeal before the CESTAT which is allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal. 3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that though a limitation of one years is provided under Section 28 for taking the action, no such limitation is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Customs .....

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 Tribunal while allowing the appeal has held that though no limitation is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 61, the authorities are required to take action within a reasonable period. The learned CESTAT while allowing the appeal has relied upon the judgment of the Madras CESTAT in the case of C.C., Madras v. TVS Whirlpool Limited [1996(86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal)] wherein the CESTAT has held that when no limitation is prescribed under the provisions, then an action has to be taken .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version