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 →

Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah And Anr. Versus Reliance Industries Ltd.

Evasion of duty - CENVAT credit - omission of Rule 56A - Held that: - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted - appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the trial court dated 22nd March, 2013 and discharged the respondent in Criminal Case No.441 of 1987 under Section 9 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act) read with Rules 52A, 56A, 173G, 9(2) and 173(Q) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) read with Section 11-A of the Act. 2. Complaint dated 4th August, 1987 was filed by the appellant in his capacity as Superintendent, Central Excise, Group -II, Central Excise Collectorate, Hqrs. Jivabha Mension, Ahmedabad alleging comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

173(G), 9(2) of Central Excise Rules and Rule 173(Q) read with Section 11(A) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 3. The respondent moved the High Court by way of a revision petition. The High Court has allowed the revision petition. It was held that since Rule 56A was omitted without prescribing any saving clause, proceedings could not continue. Referring to Section 38A added to the Act by the Finance Act, 2001, it was observed that Explanation to Section 132 of the Finance Act, 2001, l .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

citor General appearing for the appellant submitted that the view taken by the High Court is erroneous. The charge against the respondent was of evasion of excise duty under Section 9(1)(b) which remains unamended. The evasion was on account of the respondent having taken credit without following the procedure under Rule 56A. By omission of the said Rule, the charge did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Alternatively, it was submitted that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applied to omiss .....

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
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| 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