Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.40 seconds)
Kanoria Energy And Infrastructure Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 28 August, 2024
cites
Section 73 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Finance Act, 2018
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 70 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007
Suppression means failure to disclose full
information with the intent to evade payment of
16
E/50983/2021 & 5 others
duty as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Continental Foundation Jt. Venture Vs CCE,
Chandigarh-I reported at 2007(216)ELT 177(S.C). In
view of the above extended period is invokable and
therefore, the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 is applicable for recovery of duty so
evaded. Cases relied upon by the assessee in this
regard are not applicable in the present case in
view of the above reasons that the suppression of
facts is established and that the facts and
circumstances of the judgments/ case laws cited
by the appellant are different from the instant
case, therefore the same are not relevant in this
case. I therefore hold the demand of Central
Excise duty amounting to Rs. 11,02,12,141/- is
recoverable along with interest from the assessee
under proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11 A
of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 11AB
ibid."
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Easland Combines Coimbatore vs Collector Of Central Excise Coimbatore on 13 January, 2003
In Easland Combines, Coimbatore vs. Collector of Central
Excise, Coimbatore10 the Supreme Court observed that for invoking
the extended period of limitation, duty should not have been paid
because of fraud, collusion, wilful statement, suppression of fact or
contravention of any provision. These ingredients postulate a positive
act and, therefore, mere failure to pay duty which is not due to fraud,
M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur on 22 January, 2013
"27. Therefore, it is evident that failure to pay tax is
not a justification for imposition of penalty. Also, the
word "suppression" in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of
the Excise Act has to be read in the context of other
words in the proviso, i.e. "fraud, collusion, wilful
misstatement". As explained in Uniworth (supra),
Bharat Hotels Limited vs Commissioner, Central Excise ... on 29 November, 2017
51. The Delhi High Court in Bharat Hotels Limited vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication)13 also examined
at length the issue relating to the extended period of limitation under
the proviso to section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 199414 and held as
follows: