Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)
Union Of India vs Coastal Container Transporters ... on 26 February, 2019 cites

The Dy. Commnr. Central Excise vs Sushil & Company on 13 April, 2016

18. As we are not in agreement with the view taken by the High Court, in entertaining the writ petition against show cause notices, we refrain from recording any finding on contentious issues which arise for consideration. If any finding is recorded by this Court at this stage, same will prejudice either of the parties. Having regard to the contentions raised, it cannot be said that there are no factual disputes. Applicability of the circulars dated 06.08.2008 and 05.10.2015 is also in serious dispute. Further the classifiability of service rendered by a particular assessee is to be considered with reference to facts of each case depending upon nature of service rendered and the contract entered into. There 17 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.25699/18 cannot be any general declaration, as prayed for. The judgment of this Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Anr. v. Sushil and Company (supra) also cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand to come to the conclusion that the services rendered by the respondents will fall in the category of “goods transport agency” but not “cargo handling service”. In the aforesaid judgment, the contract was only for supply of labour and it was the specific case of the assessee that such labour was not doing any work of packing, unpacking, loading, unloading of any cargo. In view of such written contract for limited services referred above, this Court has held that such service cannot be held to be “cargo handling service”. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts and same cannot be applied to the case on hand, so as to accept the case of the respondents that their service is to be classified in the category of “goods transport agency” but not “cargo handling service”.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Guwahati Carbon Ltd on 24 July, 2018

19. On the other hand, we find force in the contention of the learned senior counsel, Sri Radhakrishnan, appearing for the appellants that the High Court has committed error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notices. Though there is no bar as such for entertaining the writ petitions at the stage of show cause notice, but it is settled by number of decisions of this Court, where writ petitions can be entertained at 19 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.25699/18 the show cause notice stage. Neither it is a case of lack of jurisdiction nor any violation of principles of natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition, more so, when against the final orders appeal lies to this Court. The judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants also supports their case. In the aforesaid judgment, arising out of Central Excise Act, 1944, this Court has held that excise law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and held that entertaining writ petition is not proper where alternative remedy under statute is available. When there is a serious dispute with regard to classification of service, the respondents ought to have responded to the show cause notices by placing material in support of their stand but at the same time, there is no reason to approach the High Court questioning the very show cause notices. Further, as held by the High Court, it cannot be said that even from the contents of show cause notices there are no factual disputes.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. Guwahati Carbon Limited2 and also in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Dev. Corpn. Ltd.3. It is submitted that in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Hindustan Dev. Corpn. Ltd. 2 (2012) 11 SCC 651 3 1998 (100) ELT 14 (S.C.) 13 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.25699/18 (supra) it is clearly held by this Court, that writ petition is not to be entertained at show cause notice stage when the dispute relates to classification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document

Paper Products Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 12 July, 2007

Further, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, Dr. Singhvi, also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. (supra) in support of his argument that circulars issued by the CBEC are binding on departmental 18 C.A.@ SLP(C)No.25699/18 authorities and they cannot take a contrary stand. It is true that circulars issued by the CBEC are binding on the authorities, but at the same time, such circulars are applicable or not, is a matter which is to be considered with reference to facts of each case. When it is the case of the appellants that such circulars referred above would apply only in case of road transportation but not otherwise, then it is a case for consideration by competent authority on receipt of the explanation but same is no ground to quash the show cause notices.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 52 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next