Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 234 (2.06 seconds)

Hindusthan Malleables And Forgings ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 18 December, 1991

"Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 (SC) wherein it has been held that extended period of five years is inapplicable for mere failure or negligence to pay duty when there was scope for doubt that the goods were not dutiable unless there is evidence that the manufacturer knew that the goods were liable to duty and he due to fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts in contravention of any provision of the Act and the Rules, cleared the goods without payment of duty, the extended period of five years limitation could be invoked."
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Royal Sundaram General Insurance ... vs Commissioner Of Gst & Ce - Chennai ... on 29 July, 2024

Similarly, the Apex Courts judgment in '*Padmini Products' (supra) states that the extended period of 5 years is inapplicable for mere failure or negligence. This too will be discussed later In this order. I have discussed the facts and law of each case cited before us, and have tried to demonstrate that these cases cannot serve as a precedent in this case for reasams discussed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Flower Marketing Committee vs Delhi - I on 30 August, 2018

9. Now coming to the question of leviability of service tax under the extended time proviso under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 as well as levy of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act is concerned, we agree with the learned Advocate that the ingredients of intention to evade service tax are certainly missing in this case and there have been genuine confusion regarding the leviability of service tax on the rents collected by the various agricultural produce marketing boards/committees in this regard. We follow the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Padmini Products vs. CCE, Bangalore (supra) and hold that extended time proviso in this case is not legally invokable in this case. We also hold that penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also not invokable in this case. The appeals are accordingly decided. The appeals are therefore allowed by way of remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority with the following direction :-
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lacto Cosmetics (Vapi) (P.) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 12 December, 1995

30. I am inclined to agree with the Collector that having regard to the prescribed proforma of the price list the appellants were under obligation to disclose the nature and details of different types of packing used for the goods and the total realisation made from the customers towards the sale of the goods including packing and thereafter claim deduction on account of packing the cost of which according to them was not includible in the assessable value in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act. Failure on the part of the appellants to disclose to the Department the recoveries made through separate debit notes in respect of special packing of 7-ply double faced corrugated boxes, universal folding type, in my view, amounted to a deliberate suppression of fact with the intention of evading duty and cannot be attributed to any bona fide belief on their part that they were not required to disclose such additional recoveries on account of special packing in the price list. Hence the judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Linimants and Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise (supra) cannot be of any assistance to them.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co Ltd vs Commissioner Of Gst&Cce (Chennai ... on 29 July, 2024

Similarly, the Apex Courts judgment in '*Padmini Products' (supra) states that the extended period of 5 years is inapplicable for mere failure or negligence. This too will be discussed later In this order. I have discussed the facts and law of each case cited before us, and have tried to demonstrate that these cases cannot serve as a precedent in this case for reasams discussed.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L And T Hydrocarbon Engineering Ltd vs Union Of India on 3 February, 2022

(Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise), we find again that the Supreme Court held that for invoking the extended period of five years the duty Page 49 of 64 Downloaded on : Sun Apr 24 11:46:05 IST 2022 C/SCA/11308/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2022 should not had been paid, short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded because of either any fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of material facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder being the are essential ingredients. These ingredients postulate a positive act, therefore, failure to pay duty or take out a licence is not necessary due to fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act. Likewise suppression of facts is not failure to disclose the legal consequences of a certain provision.
Gujarat High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Vee Kay Industries vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 27 July, 1990

The learned advocate had cited the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) ELT 195 (SC) and also Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments reported in 1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC) . We do not find any merit in the appellants' contention. The appellants had been making clearances of the goods without making any payment of the Central Excise Duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next