Gujarat High Court
Commissioner Of Central Excise& ... vs Blue Star Limited....Opponent(S) on 16 February, 2015
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai
O/TAXAP/277/2009 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX APPEAL NO. 277 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
================================================================
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& CUSTOMES, VADODARA -
II....Appellant(s)
Versus
BLUE STAR LIMITED....Opponent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURANG H BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HASIT DILIP DAVE, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
Page 1 of 4
O/TAXAP/277/2009 JUDGMENT
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 16/02/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI)
1. We have heard Mr.Gaurang H.Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Hasit Dave, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. While admitting this appeal on 24.03.2009, the Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law:
"1. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed a substantial error of law in setting aside the penalty imposed on the assessee under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 11A of the Central Excise Act ?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed a substantial error of law in holding that the revenue was not justified in invoking longer period of limitation by invocation of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act ?
3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified and has committed a Page 2 of 4 O/TAXAP/277/2009 JUDGMENT substantial error of law in holding that the demands raised beyond the normal period of limitation of six months are to be barred on the ground of the department's knowledge subsequent to the alleged suppression/misdeclaration by the assessee ?"
3. In this Tax Appeal, the adjudicating authority demanded central excise duty of Rs.92,279/- and imposed penalty of equal amount. The assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)which came to be rejected. The assessee filed the appeal before the CESTAT and the Tribunal has disposed of the said appeal setting aside the demand and penalty imposed upon the assessee. The said order of the Tribunal is challenged in this tax appeal.
4. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS V. STOVEC INDUSTRIES LTD., reported in 2014(33) STR 124 (Guj) held that in view of instruction dated 17.8.2011, tax appeal below Rs.10 lakh is not maintainable and this instruction also applies to the pending appeal. Following the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, we dismiss this tax appeal as not maintainable. Accordingly, the questions of law posed in this appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
(V.M.SAHAI, ACJ.)
Page 3 of 4
O/TAXAP/277/2009 JUDGMENT
(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)
pathan
Page 4 of 4