Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (2.34 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elgi Equipments Ltd. on 29 September, 1997

M/S. Takshila Spinners vs Cce Chanaigarh on 11 May, 2001

13. Regarding the imposition of penalty also under Section 11-AC of the CEA the impugned order of the Commissioner cannot be legally on the face of it sustained, as the said section was not on the statute at the time when the evasion of the duty was allegedly made by the appellants. The period involved is from 25.4.94 to 31.3.95 and at that time Section 11-AC was not on the statute as this section was inserted w.e.f. 28.9.96 by Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1996. This section did not had retrospective but only prospective, operation as ruled by the Apex Court in CCE Coimbatore Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd. (supra) referred by the counsel.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 3 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Yes vs Represented By : Shri Manoj Kutty (Ar) on 11 April, 2014

6. Regarding the first issue, I find that an identical question whether section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944, which was brought on the statue on 28.09.1996 had retrospective operation, was raised before the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd.  [2001 (128) ELT 52 (S.C.)], and the Honble Apex Court held as under:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Industrial Controls And Kiruthika & Co. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 9 November, 2001

5. On consideration of the submissions made, and on perusal of the records, we notice that the Commissioner has given a clear finding as to how the appellants Industrial Controls have evaded payment of duty and hence imposition of penalty on appellant G. Jayamani Proprietrix under Rule 209A of the CE Rules is justified and we uphold the same. So far as penalty on the other appellants viz. Industrial Controls is concerned, we notice that penalty has been imposed on them under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q of the CE Rules, without bifurcating under each provisions of the law. He should have bifurcated the penalty under the two separate provisions of law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) ELT 52 (sc) has held that mandatory penalty under Section 11AC cannot be imposed for an offence committed prior to the insertion of this Section as its operation will be prospective and not retrospective. There is an apparent error committed by the Commissioner in imposing a combined penalty under two provisions of the law. The Commissioner should have imposed penalty under Rule 173Q if warranted. The learned CA submitted that there was no ground for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q as there was no intention to evade payment of duty. So far as demand of duty is concerned, we confirm the same. We, therefore, remand the matter for de novo consideration of the matter in so far as imposition of penalty on appellants Industrial Controls under Rule 173Q is concerned. The appellants Industrial Controls shall be heard on the aspect of imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q, before an order is passed.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Impression Prints vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 24 August, 2005

Mr. Bagaria next submitted that penalty has been levied under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. He submitted that this Section was introduced only with effect from 28th September 1996. He relied upon the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore vs. Elgi Equipments Ltd. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 601 and submitted that it has been held that this Section only operates prospectively and not retrospectively. He submitted that thus penalty could not have been imposed. We find that no such point had been raised before the Tribunal and no such point is raised even in the Memorandum of Appeal before this Court. In any event the adjudication had taken place in 1998 at which time Section 11AC was on the statute book. We thus see no substance in the Appeal. The same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - S N Variava - Full Document

J.K. Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Cus. on 14 December, 2006

26. On the question of penalty imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 the learned Counsel for the Company submitted that the said penally could not be imposed in the facts of the case. The said penalty was imposed in the case of PP Chips. The learned Counsel for the Company stated that the said provision, namely, Section 11 AC of the said Act came into existence with effect from 28-9-1996. But the material period for which penalty was sought to be levied was between May, 1994 and January, 1995. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 52 (S.C.). The learned Counsel relied on the said judgment for the proposition that the Supreme Court held that the said provisions, namely, Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 is prospective in operation and any illegality committed prior to insertion of Section 11AC cannot be the subject matter of penalty under the said provision. This Court finds that the ratio Is squarely applicable to the facts of the case.
Orissa High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - I Mahanty - Full Document

Muthusavaari Pillai Paper Products And ... vs Cce on 3 March, 2004

10. Now coming to the legality of the imposition of penalty of equal amount of duty under the provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, we observe that it is the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Elgi Equipment Ltd., 2001 (74) ECC 284 (SC) : 2001 (42) RLT 974 (SC) that operation of the provisions of Section 11AC is prospective and penalty is not leviable in respect of illegality committed prior to insertion of the said Section. In the present case, the period involved is 1.4.94 to 16.2.96 whereas Section 11AC was inserted with effect from 28.9.96. Further, the penalty under Rule 173Q has not been apportioned. Therefore, penalty imposed under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q on the appellants viz. M/s MMSC is set aside.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next