Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.43 seconds)
M/S. Nashik Strips Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nashik on 15 December, 2009 cites

Agarwal Trading Corporation And Ors. vs Assistant Collector Of Customs And Ors. on 16 June, 1960

7.?The second contention that because the firm is not a legal entity, it cannot be a person within the meaning of Section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or of Section 167(3), (8) and (37) of the Sea Customs Act, is equally untenable. There is of course, no definition of person in either of these Acts but the definition in Section 2(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, or Section 2(3) of the Act of 1868 would be applicable to the said Acts in both of which person has been defined as including any company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not. It is of course contended that this definition does not apply to a firm which is not a natural person and has no legal existence, as such clauses (3), (8) and (37) of Section 167 of the Sea Customs Act are inapplicable to the appellant firm. In our view, the explanation to S.23-C clearly negatives this contention. In that a company for the purposes in that section is defined to mean any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals and a Director in relation to a firm means a partner in the firm.(emphasis supplied) It is submitted that in the above judgment, the Honble Apex Court had held that penalty can be imposed on the firm though it was a natural person in view of the explanation to Section 23-C of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In the present case, the aforesaid explanation to Section 23-C of the Foreign Regulation Act cannot be pressed into service for the purposes of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Thus the Apex Court judgment in the case of M/s. Agarwal Trading Corporation and Others Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta is inapplicable to the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Raj Woollen Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Simla. on 19 January, 1961

Furthermore; the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner  2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal) was specifically in the context of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and the same has been maintained by the Honble Apex Court in Commissioner v. Woodmen Industries  2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.). Under the circumstances, it is submitted that no penalty is imposable on the firm under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Commissioner, Trade Tax, U. P vs M/S D. S. M. Group Of Industries on 9 December, 2004

Furthermore; the decision of the Honble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Woodmen Industries v. Commissioner  2004 (164) E.L.T. 339 (Tribunal) was specifically in the context of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 and the same has been maintained by the Honble Apex Court in Commissioner v. Woodmen Industries  2004 (170) E.L.T. A307 (S.C.). Under the circumstances, it is submitted that no penalty is imposable on the firm under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 Next