Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Versus M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.

2016 (1) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Adjustment of amounts of refund due to the respondent against confirmed dues of penalty - FAA deleted the adjustment - Held that:- Section 11 of the Central Excise Act does not provide for adjustment of money due towards the amount due to Revenue. - The first appellate authority has justifiably held that the adjudicating authority could not have adjusted the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on the respondent by Order-in-Original dated 2.11.2005. Also see COMMISSIONER OF C. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeals), Mumbai-I. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the adjustment of amounts due to the respondent against confirmed dues. 4. The respondent were visited by the authorities and on such survey it was noticed that there was short payment of duty and were advised to deposit ₹ 10 lakhs, which was complied on 25.9.2004 before issue of show-cause notice. A show-cause notice dated 20.11.2004 was issued, proceedings culminated in favour .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

der-in-original dated 6.2.2006. Revenue is aggrieved by the said order and filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. It is the submission of learned AR that the findings of the first appellate authority is not legal and proper, as provision of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers the Department to adjust refund amount against government dues. It is his submission that ultimately the penalty of ₹ 59 lakhs has been confirmed by this Tribunal. It is also his submission .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ling Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Hyderabad - 2010 (251) ELT 69 (Tri-Bang) for the same proposition, as also in the case of Global Stores (P) Ltd. - 2009 (236) ELT 149 (Tri-Del). 6. Ld. Counsel would submit that the issue is no more res integra as Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Stella Rubber Works (Unit-II) - 2012 (275) ELT 04 (Kar) was considering the issue which is identical to the case before this Bench. He subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hority has justifiably held that the adjudicating authority could not have adjusted the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on the respondent by Order-in-Original dated 2.11.2005. The findings recorded by the appellate authority are reproduced as under:- "8. I find that the adjudicating authority admits that appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original No. 12/2005 but has appropriated the time of passing the order. I find that the appropriation of any amounts due to th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

jected to any further judicial proceedings. Therefore the appropriation is not in order and the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs should have been sanctioned in cash. 9. The adjudicating authority has then held that no interest is liable to be paid as the amount was not duty but a deposit made by their own volition. I find that all amounts refunded by the Central Excise department are governed by the provisions of Section 11B. Such amount whether paid as a pre-deposit or whether as duty are all governe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

17.06.2003 in terms of explanation to Section 11BB, interest on the refund of ₹ 10 lakhs is payable within three months from the date of the Tribunal's Order i.e. 17.06.2003." I find that the finding recorded by the first appellate authority is correct and in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Stella Rubber Works (supra). With respect I reproduce the ratio which is in para 4.1 also find that this Bench in the case of Mars Inter .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e he submits that the impugned order requires to be interfered with. Section 11 of the Act would deal with the recovery of sums due to the Government reads as under:- A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear that if any duty or other sums due to the Central Government under the Act and recovery of certain amounts, if any person owing money to the assessee, the revenue may proceed against such person and recover the duty and other sums due to the Government. It is in the nature of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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