Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Malwa Iron & Steel Company on 5 June, 2013

Sajjan Kumar Goel vs 1) Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Dhanji Bhanushali vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhimsen Bhagwat Singh vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Bhagwan Tulsiyan vs 1) Cc (General) Mumbai on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gulbir Singh Anand vs Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suresh Khandelwal vs 1) Cc (Import) Nhavasheva on 26 August, 2019

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1