Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (1.88 seconds)
Documents citing Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs C.C.E on 28 September, 1994

Travancore Cement Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 April, 1998

She also mentioned that the Appellants were under the bona fide impression that the screening plant was not chargeable to duty and in support, the affidavit of Shri Raju A. Cherian, Works Manager, was referred to. It was also contended that assembly of a product for own use and not for sale does not amount to manufacture as held in Haryana State Electricity Board v. CCE - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal). It was also mentioned that in any event, all the facts necessary for the demand was within the department's knowledge by 17-8-1988 and the show cause notice could legally be issued only within six months of such knowledge which was admittedly not done.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharampal Satyapal And Ors. vs Cce on 1 October, 1999

As such it is inconceivable that the party did not have the knowledge of the dutiability of the compound they were manufacturing. With this knowledge of dutiability of the product the party did not disclose to the department the premises where the activity of manufacture of the product was being carried. By bringing this material on record the department has discharged its initial burden to prove that the situations visualised by the proviso existed. The law in this regard has been laid by the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE wherein it was held "the proviso is in the nature of exception to the principal clause. Therefore, its exercise is hedged on one hand with existence of such situations as have been visualised by the proviso by using such strong expression as fraud, collusion etc. and on the other hand it should have been with the intention to evade payment of duty. Both must concur to enable the Excise officer to proceed under this proviso and invoke the exceptional power. Since the proviso extends the period of limitation from six months to five years it has to be construed strictly. The initial burden is on the department to prove that the situations visualised by the proviso existed. But once the department is able to bring on record material to show that the appellant was guilty of any of those situations which are visualised by the section, the burden shifts and then the applicability of the proviso has to be construed liberally". As regards the availability of Modvat credit and exemption notification, the availability of legal alternatives cannot be used to justify an illegal act. Moreover, an attempt on the part of the party to tamper with the original records and prepare doctored documents to escape from the duty liability is also indicative of its wrongful intentions.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Siv Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 22 September, 2004

The department cannot be expected to know the activities being carried on by the assessee who are working under the Self-Removal System unless they furnish the details called for by the department. In the present case, in spite of the appellants having been asked to give complete details about the generation of scrap, they have not placed the required information. We also observe that the appellants are working under Self Removal Procedure Scheme (SRP) and lot of faith is reposed on the assessee to maintain all the records correctly, which they have not done in the instant case. Strong reliance was placed by the appellants in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, 2002 (82) ECC 462 (SC): 1994 (55) ECR 7 (SC) wherein it was held that when the law requires that an intention to evade payment of duty, then it is not mere failure to pay duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Panasonic Avc Networks India Co. Ltd vs Cce, Meerut on 23 September, 2013

Interpreting the provisions of Section 11A (1), the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. CCE, Madras (supra) has held that when the law requires an intention to evade the payment of duty, then this not mere failure to pay the duty but is something more that the assessee was aware that the duty was payable and he deliberately avoided paying it. On going through the order of the original Adjudicating Authority and of the 1st Appellate Authority, I find that there are no findings as to how the appellant had deliberately short paid the amount payable under Rule 3 (4). In fact the dispute here is related to interpretation of Rule 3 (4)  whether during the period prior to 1/3/03 when in terms of the wordings of this rule, on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to the duty at the rate in force on the date of removal of inputs and on the value determined under Section 4, 4A or Section 3 (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as the case may be, was payable or the assessees liability was only restoring the Cenvat credit originally taken. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the appellant have paid the amount strictly going by the wordings of Rule 3 (4) during the period of dispute, according to which on removal of cenvated inputs as such, an amount equal to duty on the transaction value was payable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sonalkar Machine Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 8 December, 2005

Therefore, the plea of the assessee before the authorities that larger period should not be invoked is to be accepted in the light of the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras (supra); Pushpam Pharmaceuticals (supra); Chemphar Drugs (supra); Padmini Products (supra); Astra Pharmaceuticals (supra). As the demands have been raised invoking larger period, the benefit of time-bar has to be given to the assessee. The appeals are allowed on the time-bar alone.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (Unit-I) [Apl] ... on 10 March, 2006

In the case of Lubrichem Industries v. CCE, Bombay , Tamilnadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras , Cosmic Dye Chemicals v. CCE, Mumbai and Pushpam Pharmaceutical v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 1999 (78) ELT 401 (SC). In view of the above, the demand for the period from 1/95 to 9/99 was hit by time limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next