Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 1324

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - no substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue. - CEA No. 19 of 2015 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 17-8-2015 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. SHEKHER DHAWAN, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing CEA Nos. 19 and 20 of 2015 as according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved in these cases is identical. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CEA No. 19 of 2015. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the Act ) against the order dated 21.8.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tent and circumstances of delay, could be held to be ultra vires of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Constitution of India? iv) Whether mandatory penalty equal to the amount of duty on the assessee in case of violation of the provisions of erstwhile Rule 96ZP of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be waived or reduced at the discretion of the adjudicating authority having regard to extent and circumstances of delay in payment of duty? v) Whether the provisions of Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inserted vide Section 131 of the Finance Act, 2001 (Validation of the action taken has been provided by virtue of the Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001) shall be applicable in respect of obligation and liabilities incurred u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 4(2) of the 1997 Rules. The Commissioner redetermined the annual capacity of production under Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules vide order dated 13.10.2000 which was challenged before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 9.4.2001 remanded the case back to the Commissioner for re-determination of the annual capacity of production. Feeling aggrieved, the department filed an appeal against the order dated 9.4.2001 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 21.10.2003 dismissed the appeal of the department against which the department filed Civil Appeal Nos. 8342-44 of 2004 and 9814 of 2010 in the Apex Court. The Supreme Court vide a common order dated 6.7.2011 set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored that of the Commissioner dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates