Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments on 9 March, 2001

Universal Radiators Ltd. And Southern ... vs Cce on 23 August, 2002

The penalty under Section 11 AC of the Act is not imposable in terms of the Apex Court Judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipment 2001 (128) ELT 52 as during the period of violation the said proviso was not in force. Therefore the Commissioner has to re-adjudicate on the aspect of imposing penalty under Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 after arriving at correct duty which is liable to be paid by the appellant. Insofar as the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. URL-I under Rule 209 A is concerned this matter is required to be re-examined and the amount to be refixed after the quantum of duty is arrived at on the M/s. SPT. Insofar as the claim of benefit of Notification under No. 174/87 dated 10.6.87 is concerned, it is clear that the notification is subject to following procedure sought out in the Chapter 10 of the CE Act. It was argued by the counsel that non-following the procedure under Chapter X of the CE Rules is only a procedural lapse. Ld. DR is justified in raising the plea that the appellant had not filed their claim seeking benefit of notification. However we notice that the Tribunal has allowed the assessees to raise the claim for the benefit of notification. In terms of judgment already noted above we direct the Commissioner to examine this aspect of the matter on de novo consideration. The appellant shall be given an opportunity of hearing and to satisfy the Commissioner on all aspects of the matter. The Commissioner shall re-examine the issues and pass a detailed order in terms of the directions recorded in this order with regard to quantification after granting deductions as claimed and refix duty and penalty. The benefit of notification if at all is applicable is also to be extended. Thus the appeal is allowed by remand on the above terms.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M/S. Omtex Ltd. And M/S. Srivishnu ... vs Commr. Of Cex, Coimbatore on 19 July, 2001

8. In so far as the case of Shree Vishnu Spinner is concerned, the ratio of the judgment of Tamilarasi Textiles by final order noted above would apply with regard to the re-fixation of penalties, as the Commissioner has imposed combined penalty both under Section 11AC and other provisions of law. The Apex Court in the case of CCE Vs. Elgi Equipments (supra) has held that Section 11AC does not retrospective effect. The counsel's plea that the period of clearance is pertaining to a period earlier to the promulgation of Section 11AC, therefore the Commissioner's invocation of Section 11AC and imposing penalty including the other provisions is unsustainable and this has to be re-adjudicated. In so far as the plea of the counsel that there has been clearance with permission from the department under Form 20, we notice that although the Commissioner has given findings in para 37, the counsel's plea that the evidence supporting to their plea has not been considered. On perusal of para 37 of the impugned order, we notice that there is no reference to the evidence while in the paper book, much evidence has been produced. Therefore, this aspect is also required to be re-adjudicated after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Commr. Of Cus. vs Marathwada Refractories Ltd. on 10 March, 2006

In the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments the Tribunal noticed that the burden of proof of unjust enrichment had not been discharged by the assessee. Both the Apex Court judgments are distinguishable in thg light of the other two judgments referred by Id. Counsel in which the certificate of C.A. has been discussed. I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to go back to the original authorities for re-consideration of the points urged in the light of the Cost Accountant certificate. If on the facts discussed in the Cost Accountant Certificate it ultimately prevailing and it is shown that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to the consumer then the claim of the appellants is required to be accepted in the light of judgments referred to by them. Therefore the impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded for de novo consideration to the lower authority who shall hear the appellants and pass a speaking Order in the matter.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 10 July, 2003

Insofar as the submission of the Ld. Counsel that no penalty is leviable under Rule 173Q and Section 11 AC as they had already reversed the credit and paid the same even before the issue of the show cause notice and that the issue is covered by Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments, 2001 (74) ECC 285 (SC) : 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC) and that of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (140) ELT 437 (T) is required to be considered. Ld. SDR submits as there was a violation, mandatory penalty is leviable. On a careful consideration, I notice that the citation referred by the Ld. Counsel supports to the facts of the case as in the present case, 2the appellants had reversed the credit amount even before the issue of show cause notice. In that view of the matter, no penalty is leviable, and therefore, the imposition and confirmation of penalty under Section 11 AC and under Rule 173Q are set aside. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs Cce on 10 July, 2003

Insofar as the submission of the Ld. Counsel that no penalty is not leviable under Rule 173Q and Section 11 AC as they had already reversed the credit and paid the same even before the issue of the show cause notice and that the issue is covered by Apex Court Judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments reported in 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC) and that of Amritsar Crown Caps (P) Ltd. v. CCB is required to be considered. Ld. SDR submits as there was a violation, mandatory penalty is leviable. On a careful consideration, I notice that the citation referred by the Ld. Counsel supports to the facts of the case as in the present case, the appellants had reversed the credit amount even before the issue of show cause notice. In that view of the matter, no penalty is leviable, and therefore the imposition and confirmation of penalty under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q are set aside. Except for this modification, the appeal is otherwise rejected. Ordered accordingly.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next