Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988
i) CCE Vs Parle Exports (1988 (38) ELT 741)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
M/S. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd., ... vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 22 February, 2001
cites
S.P. Gupta vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 December, 1981
iii) S.P. Gupta Vs UOI (AIR 1982 SC 299).
Lustre Lampions vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 May, 1984
Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Lustre Lampions Vs Collector (1989 (18) ELT 76 (T) has held that "where inadmissible exemptions availed unauthorisedely extended time limit is applicable.
Indore Bottling Company vs Collector Of Central Excise on 9 January, 1986
In view of my above findings, it is proved that M/s BEML have contravened CER 1944, as alleged in show cause notice, rendering themselves liable to penal action. It is pertinent to note here that the party, during the proceedings have contended that the notice does not specify any particular charge under Rule 173Q of CER 1944, which has been violated, nor there are any allegations to indicate the same in the notice. The party's contention is not acceptable as mere non-mention of a particular clause, does not vitiate the show cause notice when the charge against them for wrong availment of Notfn. 452/86 has been clearly brought out in the show cause notice. To arrive at this conclusion, I take support from the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Indore Bottling Co. Vs Collector (1986 (24) ELT 80(T)).
M/S. Grauer And Weil (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda on 26 October, 1994
The final aspect to be decided is regarding imposition of penalty. It has been alleged that M/s BEML have not struck the balances in RG23A Pt. I which facts have been established supra, justifying the invoking of penal clause in the instant case as there is contravention of Rule 226. So also, it has been held by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Grawer & Weil Vs Collector (1986 (5) 338 (T) that penalty is imposable when an exemption to which the assessee is not entitled to, is availed off.
Mahendra Radio And Tv (P) Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 March, 1988
(d) When we do not find that demand of Rs 7,49,42,342.50 cannot be sustained on ground so limitation and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme court and the Larger Bench as found herein. We find no reason to uphold the imposition of penalty.
Star Paper Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 February, 1994
The next aspect is regarding the justification of invoking the proviso to Sec 11A of CESA 1944 for demanding duty for the extended period. M/s BEML in their reply to SCN have stated that since the assessment have been completed, the extended period cannot be invoked. I do not accept this contention, as per proceedings under Rule 173I or Rule 52 have been completed. To arrive at this decision, I take support from the judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Star Paper Mills Vs UOI (1984 (8) ELT 577).
1