Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs International Auto Products (P) Ltd., ... on 12 September, 2001

S.M. Auto Engineering Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I on 28 September, 2011

It was further held by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. International Auto Ltd. (supra) that differential duty when paid after the clearance, it indicates short-payment/short-levy on the date of removal, hence interest becomes leviable. Therefore, in view of these two decisions of the Supreme Court the interest is recoverable from the appellant on the amount of Rs.2,21,85,987/- which amounts to short-payment of duty on the date of removal and accordingly the interest under Section 11AB is recoverable from the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Ahmednagar Forging Ltd on 10 February, 2011

10 Thus, the instant appeal is squarely covered by the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. SKF India Ltd., as well as in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. International Auto Ltd.. The judgment rendered by the Tribunal, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad Vs. M/s Rucha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (First Appeal No.42 of 2007), which has been disapproved by the Apex Court, is, therefore, unsustainable and shall have to be quashed and set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - R M Borde - Full Document

Malu Sleepers (Mah) P. Ltd. vs Cce Pune Iii on 12 July, 2019

7. The decision in re Tata Motors Limited that has been relied upon by the Learned Authorised Representative is on the issue of judicial discipline and that too in the context of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in re Gammon India Ltd. The said decision has referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Limited [2010 E/388 & 389/2011 8 (250) ELT 3 (SC)] which itself relies upon the decision in re SKF India Ltd while distinguishing the circumstance in which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had rendered the decision in re Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. The said decision in re Gammon India Ltd was on an appeal by the assessee therein and, in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred statutorily under Central Excise Act, 1944, has determined that there is no substantial question of law involved in view of the established decisions already in existence and before recording the factum of recovery of short-payment only after it was brought to the notice of the respondent. Those facts are not congruent with the facts before us in this dispute and as the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has stated that the law is well settled and does not require a response in the civil appeal of re M/s Gammon India Ltd, we are not required to examine the applicability of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re International Auto Limited to the present dispute. In re International Auto Ltd, the decision arose from the provision of section 11A(2B) in Central Excise Act, 1944 which has enabled voluntary payment of duty and interest to preclude further action under section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 with the implication that such payment of duty and interest does not erase scope of invoking of section 11A(1) except to the extent that penalties should not be imposed. It would appear that the foundation in re Gammon India Ltd, as well as that of International Auto Limited and SKF Limited, was not in E/388 & 389/2011 9 existence when the present proceedings were commenced.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Customs (Imports) vs Pride Foramer on 24 April, 2006

10. The first question is whether the appeal is maintainable. If the answer is in affirmative, then only we shall consider whether it gives rise to any substantial question of law. 11. The submission of the counsel for the revenue is that the decision dated 5th September, 2005 passed by the Tribunal is an order under Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, amenable to appeal under Section 130. He would submit that the miscellaneous application made by the respondent-M/s.Pride Foramer was in appeal and any order passed by the Tribunal on such application in appeal is an order in appeal and further appeal therefrom is maintainable under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Durga Engineering and Foundry Works 245 ITR 272 and the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. International Auto Products (P) Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 268.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Hindustan Insecticiedes Ltd. vs Commissioner Central Excise, Ltu on 2 August, 2013

5. By two adjudication orders dated 3rd November, 2009, the contention of the appellant that interest should not be levied or the show cause notices were beyond limitation, was rejected. The appellant did not succeed in first appeal and then approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal by the impugned order dated 17th August, 2012 has rejected the contention of the appellant and has held that interest was payable. Tribunal in the impugned order has noticed that initially duty had been paid on provisional price but subsequently when the price was revised with retrospective effect, the appellant had issued supplementary invoices for the price difference and on the basis of those invoices they had also CEAC Nos. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Page 3 of 17 paid excise duty on the differential price. It is also recorded that the appellant had paid the differential excise duty on their own and suo motu without any notice or proceedings being initiated by the Revenue. Further, there cannot be any doubt that differential duty was payable as held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise versus International Auto Limited, 2010 (250) ELT 3 (SC). The said decision also observes that interest is charged to compensate for loss caused because of late payment of duty. The said loss should be compensated. Tribunal has held that interest chargeable under Section 11AB was payable on the duty paid under Section 11A(2B) under the supplementary invoice on the price differential on account of retrospective price escalation received by the assessee and if the same has not been paid, the same would be recovered from the assessee. Thus, the tribunal has given a finding and in our opinion has rightly held that interest was payable under Section 11AB of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 38 - S Khanna - Full Document
1   2 3 Next