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 →

Union of India Versus M/s Manmade Spinners India Ltd.,

2017 (11) TMI 534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Evasion of duty - jurisdiction of Settlement Commission - Held that: - This Court, would entertain the Petition under Article 226 arising out of the order of the statutory Tribunal, only if it is found that the view taken by the Tribunal is either perverse or impossible. No perversity or impossibility is noticed in the order of the learned Tribunal - The learned Tribunal has given cogent and sound reasons as to why it felt it appropriate to entertain the grievance of Respondent No.1 - petition d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the present Petition are as under: 3] Respondent No.1 is holding central excise registration and is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Viscose Yarn of different varieties, falling under Chapter 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. On a surprise visit conducted by the Officers of the Anti-Evasion Branch of Central Excise, Kolhapur in the factory of Respondent No.1, it was found that the RG1 Register was written up to 31.12.2000 only and the last date of payment o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2003, demanding Central Excise duty amounting to ₹ 57,10,404/and also invoking the penal provisions under the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder. However, it appears that Respondent No.1, during the course of investigation itself, admitted the liability and paid the amount which was found to be short alongwith interest thereon. Respondent No.1, therefore, filed an application before the Settlement Commission under the provisions of Section 32E of the said Act. 5] The applicat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nto consideration the law laid down by the Chennai High Court in the case of Commr of Cus. (AIR), Chennai vs. CUS. & C. Ex.2002 (139) E.L.T. 512 (Mad.) Settlement Commission1. He further submits that since Respondent No.1 had not filed returns, provisions of Section 32E of the said Act could not have been invoked. He therefore submits that the order of the learned Settlement Commission is liable to be set aside. 7] Mr. Sanghavi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, submits .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

invoking jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission in a case involving smuggling. As such, the Tribunal has rightly distinguished the said judgment. 9] Insofar as the second ground with regard to Respondent No.1 not filing returns is concerned, we find that the same is without merit. Firstly, the learned Tribunal has itself found that Respondent No.1 was filing returns. Apart from that, in view of second proviso to sub-section 1 of Section 32F of the said Act, even if the returns are not filed, .....

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