Metal Forgings (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 29 June, 1994
(iv) Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. UOI-1985 (19) E.L.T. 329.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.74 seconds)Documents citing
Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 November, 1984
Heat Weld vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 July, 1991
vi) Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. UOl and Anr. [1985 (19) ELT329 (M.P.)]
M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E., Calcutta-I on 11 January, 2001
(v) Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. U.O.I.: 1985 (19) ELT 329 (MP);
Shri Ashok Kumar Bhawarlal Punamiya, ... vs The Additional Collector Of Customs ... on 3 March, 1989
18. In the instant cases, the Additional Collector has issued show-cause-notices within 10 days from the date of suspension of Gold Dealer's Licence to all the appellants. However, applying the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court as stated earlier, merely giving of show cause notice and affording an opportunity to submit the explanation is not enough to fulfill the statutory requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause. The Appellants must be given an opportunity to produce evidence in defence and to rebut the allegations levelled against them within 10 days, if the proposed action is to be taken first and prior to giving of a reasonable opportunity to the delinquents. This statutory requirement is not fulfilled in all these cases and hence all the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
Dexler Information Solutions Pvt Ltd vs Bangalore Service Tax- I on 21 February, 2025
3.4 The learned CA drew our attention to the decision of the
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of
Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. UOI: 1985 (19)
ELT 329 (MP) and submits that the show-cause notice cannot
be considered as an empty formality, it should postulates an
opportunity of showing cause to be adequate. As regarding the
allegation of wrongful availment of cenvat credit, the learned CA
submits that the respondent has not provided any evidence to
show the basis for denial of credit and as per the show-cause
notice, it is only alleged that "On verification of the related
service invoices, it was observed that the assessee has availed
and utilised the credit of service tax paid on certain input service
which do not have any nexus with the output service viz.,
commercial training or coaching services to the tune of
Rs.6,65,911/-." Thus, the finding is without any evidence and to
Page 5 of 7
ST/1954/2011
rebut, the appellant has the right to know the charge and the
basis of the charge for defending the allegations made.
M/S.Vasan Healthcare Private Limited vs Income Tax Department on 16 March, 2020
6.Following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Madhumilan Syntex case [supra], these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
Dr.A.M.Arun vs Income Tax Department on 16 September, 2022
16.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-
executive director cannot be treated as a principal officer, since such
director is not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company. The
Income Tax Act comes up with a very specific provision under Section
2(35) of the Act, wherein notice can be issued to all the directors treating
them as principal officers. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above
judgment has categorically held that once such notice is given and
necessary averments are also made in the complaint, the fact as to
whether the director is a principal officer or not can only be decided in
trial. This ratio will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. That is
the reason why, the learned Single Judge, while dismissing two other
quash petitions filed by the petitioner challenging two other complaints
of similar nature, rightly relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd., case and dismissed those petitions.
The present petitions are also liable to be treated in the same manner and
this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings of
the Court below.
Optel Telecommunication Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 13 April, 2005
He relied upon the decision in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1985 (19) ELT 329 MP) wherein it has been held that a show cause notice is not an empty formality and the law requires that the show cause notice should give an opportunity of leading evidence in support of ones allegation and controverting the charge or allegation as are made against the persons called upon to show cause; that a mere opportunity of submitting an explanation is not enough.
Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 6 July, 1989
9. The first point that Mr. Pikle urged before me was that the demand raised is without issue of any valid show cause notice, which is the statutory requirement to be followed. He submitted that the notice of demand dated 15-7-1981, issued vide Rule 13 of the Rules, is clearly not a notice as contemplated under Section 11A of the Act. He submitted that the notice should be precise and unambiguous and should clearly show as to what case the appellants were required to meet with, and cited the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Burhnuddin Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1970 AP137, and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhumilan Syntax Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 329 (MP).
Kiran Spinning Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 October, 1988
Strangely, the department did not issue the notice till 17-2-1978 even though the required particulars were furnished by the applicants in their letter dated 2-12-1977. There is considerable force in the contention of Shri Jois that the letter of the Superintendent has no attributes of the show cause notice. The show cause notice should not only indicate the duty required to be paid but also should give reasonable opportunity to the appellants for showing cause against the demand. As has been held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 1985 (19) ELT 329 in the case of Madliumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. a show cause notice is not an empty formality. It postulates the opportunity of showing cause to be adequate. It is not merely enabling a party to make a mere representation. The expression "showing cause" can-notes an opportunity of leading evidence in support of ones allegation and controverting the charge or allegation as are made against the person called upon to show cause. The mere opportunity of submitting an explanation is not enough. The letter of Superintendent dated 26-11-1977 in our opinion, cannot be considered as show cause notice contemplated by law. We, therefore, reject Shri Arya's contention.
1