Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)
Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Mysore on 25 May, 2023 cites

Forum Of Sc And St Legislators And ... vs Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. And ... on 27 February, 2017

CCE vs. Bigen Industries: 2006 (197) ELT 305 (SC) iv. CCE vs.Amar Bitumen & Allied Industries: 2006 (202) ELT 213 (SC) v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd: 2006 (202) ELT 37 (SC) vi. CCE vs. Novopan Industries Ltd.: 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) 4.8 It is further submitted that the show-cause notices demanded duty under Section 11A but the demand was for more than the normal period. Show-cause notices did not allege fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and they have not invoked proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Commissioner the impugned order has demanded duty under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is clearly contrary to the contents Page 5 of 10 Appeal No. : E/562/2008 of the show-cause notices. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is also beyond the scope of show-cause notice, hence, they pleaded that impugned order should be set aside.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - V J Mehta - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Novopan Industries Ltd. on 28 July, 2006

CCE vs. Bigen Industries: 2006 (197) ELT 305 (SC) iv. CCE vs.Amar Bitumen & Allied Industries: 2006 (202) ELT 213 (SC) v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd: 2006 (202) ELT 37 (SC) vi. CCE vs. Novopan Industries Ltd.: 2007 (209) ELT 161 (SC) 4.8 It is further submitted that the show-cause notices demanded duty under Section 11A but the demand was for more than the normal period. Show-cause notices did not allege fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or contravention of the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 and they have not invoked proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Commissioner the impugned order has demanded duty under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is clearly contrary to the contents Page 5 of 10 Appeal No. : E/562/2008 of the show-cause notices. Accordingly, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC is also beyond the scope of show-cause notice, hence, they pleaded that impugned order should be set aside.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

M/S. Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs Cce,C&St, Visakhapatnam on 1 April, 2016

ii. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. vs. CCE, Visakhapatnam 4.7 He further submitted that the department having accepted the principles laid down in the judgment of the Tribunal in appellant's own case on the same facts and issue for the period from March 1988 to March 2001, the initiation of proceedings and demand of duty for the subsequent periods from 31.3.2002 onwards on identical facts and issue is against the settled law.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next