Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)
Shri Bhagwan Tulsiyan vs 1) Cc (General) Mumbai on 26 August, 2019 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Hari Concast (P) Ltd on 20 April, 2009

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

M/S. Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 12 August, 2009

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S. Malwa Iron & Steel Company on 5 June, 2013

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Surjeet Singh Chhabra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 October, 1996

9. Countering these claims, Learned Authorised Representative places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India [1997 (89) ELT 646 (SC)] which has held that '3....It is contended that the petitioner had retracted within six days from the confession. Therefore, he is entitled to cross-examine the panch witnesses before the authority takes a decision on proof of the offence. We find no force in this contention. The Customs officials are not police officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds the petitioner.' to justify the reliance placed in the impugned order on the confession of Shri Goel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 235 - Full Document

State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union ... on 11 October, 2007

8. Besides the primary plea of having been a lender of money to M/s Lord Empire International, it is submitted by Learned Counsel that the inclusion of Shri Goel, through an addendum to show cause notice, is patently illegal. According to him, the investigations culminating in issue of the original notice did not contain any reference to Shri Goel and none of the noticees therein had brought up his name or his involvement in the import and clearance. He questions the genuineness of the statement recorded after the issue of show cause notice as none of them had been asked to substantiate this failure to do so on previous occasions. Learned Counsel also challenges the reliance placed upon the confession recorded from Shri Goel as this had been retracted at the first available opportunity. Drawing attention to the lapse of time between the alleged contravention and the imposition of penalty, Learned Counsel, placing reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd [2007 (217) ELT 325 (SC)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Hari Concast (P) Ltd [2009 (242) ELT 12 (P&H)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mohindra Iron & Steel Industries [2014 (310) ELT 495 (P&H)], Bhawani Castings (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2010 (254) ELT 247 (P&H)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Malwa Iron & Steel Co [2015 (320) ELT 533 (P&H)], contends that, even if there is no special limitation prescribed C/474-475, 543, 549, 554, 563/2011 7 in section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, recourse can be had to imposition of penalty only within a reasonable time of commission of the alleged offence. He also assailed the casual discarding of the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the very issue of money having been lent to the other noticees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 254 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next