Bee Am Chemicals Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 13 May, 2014
(iii) Hindustan Motors vs CCE 2008 (228) ELT 133 (T);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.51 seconds)Documents citing
M/S.Hindustan Motors vs Cce, Indore on 19 July, 2011
Yes vs Represented By : Shri S.K. Mall, A.R on 31 May, 2013
8.In the light of what has been discussed above, on? the basis of the above referred two judgments of the Gujarat High Court, which are under different Tax statute, interest on delayed payment of interest, cannot be held to be permissible under the Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, for want of any specific provision in the Act or the Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal has no power to award such a interest to the assessee. The law laid down in Hindustan Motors v. CCE (supra), to the contrary, being not a good law, stands overruled. The reference stands accordingly answered.
Aurangabad vs Videocon Appliances Ltd on 15 September, 2011
2.3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. However, he reduced the penalty of Rs. 34,596/- to Rs. 15,000/-. While considering the reduction the appellate authority noticed that the mistake has happened due to changeover of the shift and the persons in the packing section utilised the boxes of returned refrigerator models for packing the new models, the size of the two being similar. Since the respondent had discharged the duty liability before the issue of the show cause notice, he imposed a lower amount of penalty in view of the apex courts judgment in the case of Hindustan Motors vs. CCE, Aurangabad 2003 (153) ELT A304 (SC). The department is in appeal against the impugned order.
1