Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.59 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 114A in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 112 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur vs M/S Ballarpur Industries Ltd on 30 August, 2007
13. It is the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant that the
demand is flawed for having traversed beyond the framework of the show
cause notice in which, though inappropriateness of usage in manufacture of
ineligible goods is narrated, the consequent demand proposed has not been
disaggregated from the recovery of duty of ₹ 55,75,39,599 foregone on
procurement of goods enumerated in the norms and ₹ 4,08,13,609 foregone
on goods not included in the norms. It was further submitted that, in framing
the issues purportedly contained in the notice, the adjudicating authority, of
his own volition, insinuated the proposal to disentitle concessional rate of
duty incorporated in paragraph 6.8 (a) of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP)
2009-14 and reflected in notification no. 23/2003-CE dated 31st March
2003. According to him, even while holding that goods permitted for
clearance on payment of duty are not excluded from being manufactured
out of 'duty free' procurements in the face of proposal in the notice for
recovery of 'duty foregone' to that extent, on 'raw materials' so used, the
adjudication order has determined duty as arising under section 3 of Central
Excise Act, 1944 which is intended for levy of impost on manufactured
goods. That no adjudicating authority was authorized to transgress the
boundaries of notice was, according to him, clearly enunciated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gas
Authority of India Ltd [2008(232) ELT 7 (SC)], in Commissioner of
Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd [2007 (215) ELT 489
E/85657, 85776 & 86019-86031/2020
19
(SC)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan
Beverages (P) Ltd [2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC)] as well as by the Tribunal in
Hindalco Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad
[2009 (248) ELT 391 (Tri-Del)].