Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.03 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Gammon India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 27 June, 2014
3. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the
E/388 & 389/2011
4
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd
v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (326) ELT 450 (SC)] and of
the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Gammon India Ltd v.
Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Nagpur [2013 (298) ELT
171 (Bom.)].
M/S.Telco Ltd. Now Tata Motor vs Union Of India & Ors. on 15 September, 2011
In addition, as a counter to the contention of the Learned
Cost Accountant on the requirement of extending the limitation in
section 11A as applicable to section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944,
that relies on the decision in re Paper Products Ltd, Learned Authorised
Representative cites the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
in Tata Motors Ltd v. Union of India [2009 (244) ELT 337 (Bom.)].
Raghunath Thakur vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 8 November, 1988
This principle has been lucidly explained by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Raghunath Thakur v. State of Bihar [AIR 1989 SC
620] wherein it was held as under :
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs International Auto Products (P) Ltd., ... on 12 September, 2001
7. The decision in re Tata Motors Limited that has been relied upon
by the Learned Authorised Representative is on the issue of judicial
discipline and that too in the context of the decision of the Hon'ble High
Court of Bombay in re Gammon India Ltd. The said decision has
referred to the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Limited [2010
E/388 & 389/2011
8
(250) ELT 3 (SC)] which itself relies upon the decision in re SKF India
Ltd while distinguishing the circumstance in which the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka had rendered the decision in re Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. The said decision in re Gammon India Ltd was on an
appeal by the assessee therein and, in exercise of the jurisdiction
conferred statutorily under Central Excise Act, 1944, has determined
that there is no substantial question of law involved in view of the
established decisions already in existence and before recording the
factum of recovery of short-payment only after it was brought to the
notice of the respondent. Those facts are not congruent with the facts
before us in this dispute and as the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has
stated that the law is well settled and does not require a response in the
civil appeal of re M/s Gammon India Ltd, we are not required to
examine the applicability of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in re International Auto Limited to the present dispute. In re
International Auto Ltd, the decision arose from the provision of section
11A(2B) in Central Excise Act, 1944 which has enabled voluntary
payment of duty and interest to preclude further action under section
11A(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 with the implication that such
payment of duty and interest does not erase scope of invoking of section
11A(1) except to the extent that penalties should not be imposed. It
would appear that the foundation in re Gammon India Ltd, as well as
that of International Auto Limited and SKF Limited, was not in
E/388 & 389/2011
9
existence when the present proceedings were commenced.
Commr.Of Central Excise,Pune vs M/S Skf India Ltd on 6 July, 2009
2. Learned Cost Accountant appearing for the appellant submits
that the provision for escalation, by invoking of 'book examination
clause', is peculiar to contracts with Indian Railways and the discharge
of duty liability suo motu by the appellant arising therefrom precludes
denomination as short-payment of duty within the meaning of section
11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and, hence, does not warrant the
application of section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 which is, at
E/388 & 389/2011
3
best, a consequential occurrence. It is seen that the impugned order has
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. SKF India Ltd [2009 (239)
ELT 385 (SC)] as well as the determination that the transaction value,
though paid in tranches, could not be delinked from the time of removal
from the factory of the appellant.
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Paper Products Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai on 12 July, 2007
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Tribunal
in Paper Products Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
[2015 (327) ELT 326 (Tri.-Mumbai)], which, according Learned Cost
Accountant, has examined a number of decisions, including those now
being relied upon by Revenue, to conclude that interest provision
attaches only with the recovery provisions.