Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.63 seconds)Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Prevention Of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
Commr.Of Customs vs M/S Ajay Kumar & Co on 8 May, 2009
Justice Arijit Pasayat who delivered the judgment
30 E/1166,1172,1196,1206,1225,1226,1726/2010
of the Supreme Court in the case of Afloat (supra), in a
subsequent case of Commissioner of Customs v. Ajay Kumar &
Company, reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 387, clearly indicated
that the same being not a case of forged document but one of
issue of license by practising fraud, the Tribunal was right in
holding that the transferee of the license should not be made
liable. It may not be out of place to mention here that the
Tribunal, in its judgment, reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 747
indicated in paragraph-7 as follows :
Padmini Products vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 18 August, 1989
(ii) Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in
1989 (43) E.L.T. 195.
Skn Industries Ltd. (Unit-Ii) vs Cce, Delhi -Iii on 3 July, 2016
(iii) Lubrichem Industries Limited v. CCE, Bombay, reported in
1994 (73) E.L.T. 257.
M/S. Nestle (I) Ltd. vs C.C.E., Chandigarh on 21 June, 2001
(iv) Nestle (India) Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh, reported in
2009 (235) E.L.T. 577.
Collector Of Central Excise vs E. Merck India (P) Ltd. on 5 November, 1985
13. We thus find substance in the contention of Mr. Parikh that
in the case before us, in the absence of any allegation that the
appellants were parties to the fraud, the larger period of
limitation cannot be applied, and thus, even if the original
document was assumed to be issued by practising fraud, the
appellants being holders in due course for valuable consideration
without notice, the larger period of limitation cannot be extended
in the case before us. In this connection, we may profitably refer
to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur v. E. Merck India Ltd.
reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 386 (S.C.) where the Supreme
32 E/1166,1172,1196,1206,1225,1226,1726/2010
Court took a view that in the absence of a willful misdeclaration
on the part of the respondent-assessee, there was no scope of
invoking Section 11A of the Act."
Smt Kempamma @ Bhagya vs Kempegowda @ Karigowda on 19 March, 2008
5.1 Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Prayagraj
Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt. Limited v. UOI (supra) made
following observations in Paras 9 and 12, reproduced below :-
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan
Rohtagi & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67, the accused invoked the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code
praying for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against
them under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1947.
Whereas accused No. 1 was Manager of the company, accused
Nos. 2-5 were Directors. A complaint was filed by the Food
Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, inter alia, alleging that
'Morton toffees' sold by the accused did not conform to the
standards prescribed for the commodity. The Metropolitan
Magistrate issued summons to all the accused for violating the
provisions of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the accused
that proceedings were liable to be quashed as it was not shown
that accused persons were in-charge of and responsible for the
conduct of business. The High Court allowed the petition and
37 E/1166,1172,1196,1206,1225,1226,1726/2010
quashed the proceedings. Aggrieved Municipal Corporation
challenged the decision. This Court was called upon to consider
as to whether the High Court was right in quashing the
proceedings against the accused.