Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
M/S Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi on 17 March, 2011 cites

Kathuria Portfolios vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 17 July, 2003

Knowing well this aspect, the appellants has raised the specific defence in their reply, however, the appellants did not produce any material on record to support the plea raised by them in their reply. There was no question of interpretation of law or question of law involved in the matter. It was essentially a matter of appreciation of facts and the appellants failed to place on record the necessary facts to warrant a finding in their favour. Obviously, therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in Kathuria Portfolios vs. CCE, Delhi  I (supra) is of no help to the appellants.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C.C.E., Rohtak vs M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd. . ... on 10 June, 2010

 Mumbai), and CCE, Rohtak vs. Surya Vinayak Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2010 (258) E.L.T. 513 (Tri.  Del.). On the other hand, the Departmental Representative submitted that the issue of penalty has to be decided within the parameters of the grounds sought to be raised in the memo of appeal in view of specific direction in that regard by the Honble Delhi High Court in the remand order. Drawing our attention to the show cause notice and the findings arrived at by the authorities below, he submitted that Shri M.L. Aggarwal, Director of the appellants firm had admitted the use of brand name of another person as well as payment of royalty for use of such brand name as well as full knowledge about the fact of availing exemption benefit under the SSI exemption notification. This apparently discloses, according to the Departmental Representative, lack of bonafide. He further submitted that the appellants have not challenged the findings about failure on the part of the appellants to clear the dues and non-applicability of the benefit under the said notification besides that they had paid the entire duty without any protest after intimation by the department and hence the same discloses failure on the part of the appellants to comply with the requirement of law with the intention to evade the duty till necessary action was taken by the department. Once justification for invocation of extended period of limitation having not been challenged, the imposition of penalty is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Cce, Coimbatore vs M/S. Ooty Bakers & Confectioners (P) Ltd on 4 April, 2008

2. The learned advocate for the appellants drawing our attention to the orders passed by the original Authority and lower Appellate Authority submitted that the appellants were selling the goods packed in plain boxes which did not carry the brand name of another person and the carry-bags bearing brand of another person were used merely for transportation of the goods sold to the customers. However, they did not form part of the said transaction and hence it cannot be said that appellants lack bonafide in assuming their entitlement to avail benefit of SSI Notification No. 8/2000-CE dated 1st March 2000. He further submitted that the appellants had paid the duty much prior to issuance of show cause notice as the duty was paid on 18th of October 2000, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 5th February 2001. He also submitted that the matter involved purely a question of interpretation of the notification and, therefore, question of imposition of penalty does not arise. He also submitted that the authorities have not arrived at the finding that the goods were cleared with the brand name affixed thereon. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision in the matters of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Ooty Bakers & Confectioners (P) Ltd. reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 607 (Tri.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1