Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 341 (1.68 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad on 14 February, 1989

Zenith Control And Systems (P.) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 November, 1994

The Tribunal had followed the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments . In the present matter the show cause notice is dated 4th Dec, 1990 and the demand is for the period Feb. '88 to March '89. Thus the total period involved is beyond six months from the date of the issue of the show cause notice.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nestler Boiler Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 June, 1990

If in the bona fide belief the appellants had felt that they need not declare the blowers, without intent to evade payment of duty, the proviso to Section 11-A is not invokable, especially when they had before them the Govt. of India decision in Order No. 1271 of 1977 dated 30-6-1977 in favour of the sister concern prior to the amalgamation. Each of these cases of failure to disclose the facts has to be read, in the context in which such omissions have occurred. Therefore, when declaration was filed with specification, description of blowers, and one such blower was also cleared under a gate-pass under T.I. 68 as late as 14-11-1982, on payment of duty, the allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty cannot be levelled against them. The Supreme Court decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, 1989 (40) ELT 276 is applicable to their case. As such the demand has to be restricted to the period of 6 months only.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - 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

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

"Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the observations of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad (1989) 2 SCC 127 where at page 131 : (AIR 1989 SC 832) at P. 832 at p. 835] of the report, this Court observed that in order to sustain an order of the Tribunal beyond a period of six months and upto a period of 5 years in view of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Act, it had to be established that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid, or erroneously refunded by reasons of either fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules made thereunder, with intent to evade payment of duty. It was observed by this Court that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer or conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months had to be established. Whether in a particular set of facts and circumstances there was any fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression or contravention of any provision of any Act is a question of fact depending upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case."
Patna High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Godrej Food Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 May, 1993

10. The Supreme Court again had an occasion to pronounce on the point in Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 195 S.C. Reiterating the observations made in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments (supra) it was observed that in order to claim the extended period of limitation of 5 years, it had to be established that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid by reason of either fraud or collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder with an intent to evade payment of duty. It was further observed that mere failure or negligence on the part of the producer or manufacturer either not to take out a licence in case where there was scope for doubt as to whether licence was required to be taken or where there was scope for doubt whether the goods were dutiable or not would not attract Section 11A of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of that case the Supreme Court found that there were materials on record to suggest that there was scope for confusion and the assessee believing that the goods came within the purview of concept of handicrafts were exempt. The court observed that if there was scope for such a belief or opinion, then failure either to take out a licence or to pay duty on that belief, when there was no contrary evidence that the producer or the manufacturer knew that the goods were excisable or required to be licensed, would not attract the penal provisions of Section 11A of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

M/S Srj Edu Services Pvt Ltd vs Cgst Ghaziabad on 15 January, 2026

(ii) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments [(1989) 2 SCC 127] "7. The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter and noted that the appellant's case was that the demand Service Tax Appeal No.70597 of 2025 21 for duty for the period beyond six months was time- barred; and the respondent's case was that the demand for the period beyond 6 months from the receipt of show-cause notice, was time-barred inasmuch as there was no suppression or misstatement of facts by the appellant with a view to evade payment of duty. In support of its claim the respondent produced classification list approved by the authorities during the period 1978-79, and also produced extracts from the survey register showing that the officers had been visiting its factory from time to time and also taking note of the previous goods manufactured by the respondent. The plea of the Revenue was that there was suppression and/or mis-declaration and/or wrong information furnished in the declaration itself. The Tribunal noted the facts as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gravita India Ltd vs Jaipur I.. on 22 August, 2024

Supreme Court's in the case of Collector Vs. Champhar Drugs [1989 (40) ELT-276-SC] has held that mere inaction or failure on the part of manufacturer will not amount to suppression of facts. Conscious or deliberate withholding of 10 ST/50223 / 2019 information when the manufacturer knew otherwise is required to be established before saddling the manufacturer with liability for a period beyond one year. For the bonafide belief neither extended period is applicable nor is penalty imposable.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Mvm Business Services vs Noida on 20 February, 2026

(ii) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments [(1989) 2 SCC 127] "7. The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter and noted that the appellant‟s case was that the demand Service Tax Appeal No.70741 of 2025 22 for duty for the period beyond six months was time- barred; and the respondent‟s case was that the demand for the period beyond 6 months from the receipt of show-cause notice, was time-barred inasmuch as there was no suppression or misstatement of facts by the appellant with a view to evade payment of duty. In support of its claim the respondent produced classification list approved by the authorities during the period 1978-79, and also produced extracts from the survey register showing that the officers had been visiting its factory from time to time and also taking note of the previous goods manufactured by the respondent. The plea of the Revenue was that there was suppression and/or mis-declaration and/or wrong information furnished in the declaration itself. The Tribunal noted the facts as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next