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

M/s. Sova Solar Ltd. & Another Versus Central Excise, Durgapur

2017 (4) TMI 944 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy - dismissal on the ground that the order assailed in the writ petition was appealable order and there was alternative remedy under the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - we cannot intervene on a point not specifically pleaded before us, on the basis of oral submission of the learned counsel on procedural issues, arising subsequent to delivery of the judgement by the learned First Court - We do not find any purpose would be served in keeping the appeal pending .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition was appealable order and there was alternative remedy under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The writ petitioner is primarily aggrieved by an order passed in an adjudication proceeding on 26th February, 2016 in which the adjudicating authority inter alia held:- i. I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of an amount ₹ 3,52,99,354/- (Rupees Three Crore Fifty-two lakh Ninety-nine thousand Three hundred Fifty-four only) and order recovery of the same from M/s Sova Power Ltd. under prov .....

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 duty of amount ₹ 6,24,07,996 (Rupees Six crore Twenty four lakh Seven thousand Nine hundred Ninety-six only) and order recovery of the same from M/s Sova Power Ltd. in terms of Section 28(2) of Customs Act, 1962 as amended from time to time. v. I impose interest at appropriate rate under provision of Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962 (Section 28AA wherever applicable). vi. I impose Penalty of ₹ 6,24,07,996/- (Rupees Six crore Twenty-four lakh Seven thousand Nine hundred Ninety-six .....

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 India, could not be considered. The judgement of the learned First Court was delivered on 15th July, 2007. Mr. Dhar s contention is that if the circular was taken into account, the demand and the finding of the learned Adjudicating authority would stand invalidated. This circular has been brought to our notice by way of filing a supplementary affidavit, for which leave has been granted by us. We do not find any shot coming in the reasoning of the learned First Court in the judgement appealed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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