Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 28]

Gujarat High Court

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Dashion Ltd....Opponent(S) on 1 May, 2013

Author: Akil Kureshi

Bench: Akil Kureshi

  
	 
	 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE....Appellant(s)V/SDASHION LTD....Opponent(s)
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	O/TAXAP/415/2013
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


TAX APPEAL  NO. 415 of
2013
 


 


 

================================================================
 


COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE....Appellant(s)
 


Versus
 


DASHION LTD....Opponent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
YN RAVANI, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE MS
				JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 01/05/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law:-

Whether Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal committed an error in fact and in law in reversing the order of CIT(Appeals) confirming the demand for wrongfully availed Cenvat credit of Rs.1,07,07,142/- on the ground that the issue is revenue neutral?
We notice that the Revenue has also proposed another question with respect to penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which was deleted by the Tribunal. However, from the record, we gather that there is no material to even, prima facie, suggest that there was any fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts or controversy of the provisions of the Act or the Rules on the part of the assessee with intent to evade payment of duty. Such question is, therefore, not considered.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (MS SONIA GOKANI, J.) SUDHIR Page 2 of 2