Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.22 seconds)
Mitutoyo South Asia Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi ... on 28 March, 2022 cites

M/S. Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, New ... on 24 February, 2005

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, a mere fact that notification under which appellants were claiming exemption was not applicable to them, at the time of first audit, there was no reason with the appellant to discontinue the availment of exemption of 'NIL' duty. Appellant stopped availing the same immediately it was pointed out by department at the time of 2nd audit. Thus there seems no mis-statement or suppression. The appellant, in addition, immediately paid the differential duty that too with interest and even penalty, question of any intent of evading duty by the appellant does not at all 6 C/50961/2021 arise. I draw support from Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi reported as [2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC)] wherein it was held that mere failure to declare does not amount to willful mis- declaration or willful suppression. There must be some positive act on the part of the party to establish either willful mis-declaration or willful suppression. When all facts are before the Department.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 56 - S N Variava - Full Document

M/S. Anand Nishikawa Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Meerut on 23 September, 2005

In another judgement in the case of Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported as [2005 (188) ELT 149(S.C.)], while referring to the observations made in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company reported as [1995 (78) ELT 401 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified the requirements of the proviso to Section 11-A, as follows :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 70 - T Chatterjee - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ashok Kumar Sharma on 28 August, 2020

13. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashok Kumar and Ors. reported as [(2005) 8 SCC 760] observed that "it cannot be overlooked that burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demand proof of a high order of credibility."
Supreme Court of India Cites 216 - Cited by 77 - K Joseph - Full Document

Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 October, 1999

3. It is submitted that demand raised vide the impugned Show Cause Notice was barred by time as it was issued after expiry of 5 years. There was no alleged suppression on the part of the appellant. The Department had already conduced the audit for the period 2012-2013 as was conducted in the year 2013, but no such objection was ever raised by them and no infirmity was pointed out and no demand was raised. The present Show Cause Notice includes the demand for the said period also which is legally not sustainable. The appellant was otherwise maintaining all relevant records which were being regularly audited by the Department. Question of any suppression of facts or collusion does not at all arise. Learned Counsel has submitted that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on this ground itself. The position in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector of Central Excise A.P. reported as [2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC)] has been impressed upon. It is further submitted that the penalty was not at all imposable for want of any mensrea with the appellant to evade the payment of duty.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 101 - Full Document
1   2 Next