Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing Rishi Enterprises vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 November, 1983

Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 October, 1984

The decision of this Tribunal in Rishi Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1984 (15)E.L.T. 260] relied upon by appellants also does not help the appellants in the present case. In that case Special Bench 'D' of the Tribunal found that the goods were removed within the knowledge of the excise authorities and the excise authorities did not take any step to collect the duty amount and in those circumstances it was held that the provisions of Rule 9(2) would not be applicable in that case but here in the case before us the appellants removed the goods without the knowledge and consent of the excise authorities and the excise authorities were never a consenting party in getting the goods removed without payment of duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

General Industrial Corporation vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 16 November, 1994

It was also held in the case of Rishi Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) that in all such cases extended period of limitation of 5 years would apply. In the instant case, as discussed at paras 49 & 50 above, the- party No. 2 did not obtain a Central Excise licence, did not maintain Statutory records and cleared the said goods without intimation to the Central Excise authorities and without payment of duty. I, therefore, do not find any force in the argument of the party and am of the considered view that demand in this case is covered under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the extended period of limitation would apply. Hence the demand is not time barred but is well within time."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Noble Soya House Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 May, 1992

There has been no clandestine removal of the goods and, therefore, the Collector's reliance upon the case law relating to Rishi Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1984 (15) E.L.T. 260 (Tri.) is not relevant. The Ld. Counsel, further, urged that their product is nothing but soya milk only which is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 286/86. The product is declared as soya milk in the packaging in which it is marketed and the publicity material relating to it also described it as such. It was, further, contended that all the four show cause notices were without jurisdiction because they were issued by the Assistant Collector and the Superintendent whereas it is only the Collector, who can issue show-cause notice where proviso to Section 11A of the Act is invoked alleging suppression, mis-declaration etc.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 24 February, 1984

5. Shri Narasimhan argued that the classification lists having been approved by the Assistant Collector, it was not open to his successor to issue a show cause notice which would virtually result in modification of the quasi-judicial orders passed on the classification lists. In other words, he urged that there was an absolute bar against revision of a quasi-judicial decision after one year, and unless the powers of revision are exercised by the appropriate authorities, the show cause notice will not be valid. He relied in support of his contention on the decision of the Tribunal in Order No. 584/83 dated 20-9-83 ( Nuchem Plastics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi) and also the decision reported in 1984(15) E.L.T. p. 260 (Rishi Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay). Shri Jain, SDR, on the other hand, argued that there was a deliberate mis-statement by the appellants and hence it was open to the Department to issue show cause notice. The question whether there was a mis-statement would be discussed in the course of the further paragraphs. Suffice at this stage to say that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for an appeal to the Collector against a decision or order passed by a Central Excise Officer lower in rank. But we find that Rules 10 and 10A of the Central Excise Rules provide for recovery of duties or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded. Rule 10A accords statutory powers to the Government to recover sums due. In view of these provisions, it cannot be said that an order passed by a Central Excise Officer cannot be reviewed by his successor, especially when it is found that there was a short levy or erroneous refund under the circumstances set out in Rule 10 and Rule 10A. The Order No. 584/83 cited by the learned counsel for the appellants related to a revocation of the approval of classification lists on the ground that the appropriate duty on the UFMP should be approved at 40% instead of 33% as leviable under a Notification. In the course of the ruling, it is observed that a decision could be reopened if fresh facts are brought on record or there is at least a suggestion that while arriving at the earlier conclusion, certain materials or provisions had not been considered and that if they had been considered, a different view might have been taken. The ruling in 1984 E.L.T. 260 was in a case where an appellant contended that a question of classification had not been settled, and those rulings do not apply to the facts of the present case.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Tube Investment Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 23 February, 1987

6. Shri A.K. Jain, SDR argued that the Tariff Entry referred to electrical stampings and laminations all sorts. The laminations/stampings in this case were meant for use in the electrical appliances namely dynamos. The stampings were in a marketable condition and were to be used in the manufacture of dynamos. The value of the stampings have been set out in paragraph 3 of the order-in-original and the appellants cannot claim the benefit of Notification 71/78. The appellants have not obtained licence for the manufacture of the goods. He placed reliance on the decision reported hi 1981 ELT 97 (Gopal Paper and Board Mills v. Union of India and Ors.) and also 1985 (15) ELT 260 (Rishi Enterprises, Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay), the penalty was rightly levied because the appellants have contravened the provisions.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Noble Soya House Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 August, 1991

4. Although only the first show cause notice was answerable to the Collector and the other three to the Assistant Collector, at the request of the applicants, the proceedings in the latter were also transferred to the Collector who passed a common order. After the usual proceedings and hearing the appellants the demand was confirmed. The Collector has held the view that inasmuch as the applicants did not correctly describe the product manufactured by them and mis-stated it as soya milk whereas it is not soya milk but soya milk based product, they were liable to pay duty. He held that the extended period of limitation in respect of the first show cause notice would be applicable in view of the mis-statement by the applicants. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rishi Enterprises v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay in which it was held that Rule 9(2) was applicable where there was a contravention of Rule 9(1) in the form of failure to obtain Central Excise licence, maintenance of records and removal of goods without payment of duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1