Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.55 seconds)Section 11 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Roha Dye Chem Ltd. on 26 October, 2005
22. These factual aspects and circumstances, have been considered by Tribunal, and going through the same, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, as there was no malafide pleaded by the appellant, in the show cause notice dated 03.01.2001 against the 1st respondent, to suppress the fact before the authority and ought to have made such statement to lead the Department to hold that the 1st respondent had intention to cause evasion of duty. It is an admitted fact that the confusion as to whether the goods would fall under Chapter 21 or Chapter 32 would be cleared only after the finding of the Judgment rendered by the CEGAT, Special Bench, in the case of [Collector of Customs, Excise Vs Roha Dye Chem Pvt Ltd] reported in 1989 (41) E.L.T.667 (Tribunal), which later came to be confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1997 (93) E.L.T.329 (S.C), when the order passed by the CEGAT, Special Bench was challenged by the Department.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Peter & Miller Packers on 20 February, 2015
19. Learned counsel for the appellant, relied upon the Judgment of this Court, reported in 2015 (319) E.L.T.631 (Mad.), in the case of [Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Peter & Miller Packers]. The said case was regarding the issue of ignorance of law for non payment of duty, wherein, this Court held as follows:
1