Commissioner Of Central Exciseand ... vs Prism Pigments & Colours P. Ltd.

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Commissioner Of Central Exciseand ... vs Prism Pigments & Colours P. Ltd. - ... on 17 March, 2009

Bench: K.S.Radhakrishnan

TAXAP/64620/2008                        1/2                                     ORDER


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       TAX APPEAL No. 646 of 2008


=========================================================
 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEAND CUSTOMS - Appellant(s)
                          Versus
      PRISM PIGMENTS & COLOURS P. LTD. - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR RJ OZA for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) : 1,
=========================================================
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
             CORAM :
                       K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

                       and

                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI



                             Date : 17/03/2009


ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN) Admit.

Issue notice on the following substantial questions of law, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 :

(A) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the appellate authority, setting aside the confirmation of demand of Rs.

75,481/ for the reason that Revenue has failed to establish clandestine removal of goods, despite the evidence existed on TAXAP/64620/2008 2/2 ORDER record?

(B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the appellate authority, setting aside the mandatory penalty levied under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, equivalent to amount of duty on the ground that the duty was paid before issuance of show cause notice?

(C)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in upholding the order of the appellate authority, setting aside the mandatory penalty equivalent to the amount of duty imposed under Rule 173Q read with Section 11AC of the said Act on the ground that duty leviable was paid before issuance of show cause notice, placing reliance on the judgment of the Tribunal reported in the case of M/s. Machino Montell(I) Ltd. reported in 2004[62] RLT 709 [CESTATLB]?

(D) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that from the available records and sources, the allegation of clandestine removal cannot be fastened on the respondent and therefore, thee was no ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner[Appeals]?

(K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,C.J.) (AKIL KURESHI,J.) (raghu)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court