Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.51 seconds)Cce vs Machino Montell (I) Limited on 26 April, 2004
2. In all the above cases, appeals were preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals) by the respondents and the appellate authority set aside the penalties on the ground that the CENVAT credit in question was reversed or the differential amount of duty was paid prior to issuance of show-cause notice. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in CCE vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd. 2004 (168) ELT 466 (Tri.-LB), wherein it had been held that, where duty was paid before issue of show-cause notice, there was no question of imposing any penalty under Section 11AC or of levying any interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Act. Obviously, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) presumed that the penalties imposed in all the cases by the original authority were under Section 11AC of the Act mindless of the fact that, in most of the cases, the penalties were imposed by the original authority under Rule 15, without reference to Section 11AC.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008
In the absence of allegation of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, wilful mis-statement of facts or contravention of rules with intent to evade payment of duty by the respondents, there can be no penalty on the respondents under Section 11AC of the At. In the cases of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), it was emphatically laid down by the apex court that a penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was mandatory where one or the other ingredients for such a penalty specified under that section was alleged and established by the Revenue against the person sought to be penalised. None of such ingredients was alleged by the Revenue in any of these cases, let alone proof thereof. In all these cases, the lower appellate authority proceeded on the premise that the penalties imposed by the original authority were under Section 11AC of the Act and consequently, in all these appeals of the Revenue, the appellant has raised grounds in support of their prayer for imposing penalties on the respondents under Section 11AC, though it is apparent from the record that, in most of the cases, the adjudicating authority had not imposed any penalty under Section 11AC. The prayer in these appeals for imposition of penalties on the respondents under Section 11AC cannot be granted inasmuch as none of the show-cause notices alleged anything in support of such a penalty.
Union Of India vs M/S Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills on 12 May, 2009
In the absence of allegation of fraud, collusion, suppression of facts, wilful mis-statement of facts or contravention of rules with intent to evade payment of duty by the respondents, there can be no penalty on the respondents under Section 11AC of the At. In the cases of UOI vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and UOI vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), it was emphatically laid down by the apex court that a penalty under Section 11AC of the Act was mandatory where one or the other ingredients for such a penalty specified under that section was alleged and established by the Revenue against the person sought to be penalised. None of such ingredients was alleged by the Revenue in any of these cases, let alone proof thereof. In all these cases, the lower appellate authority proceeded on the premise that the penalties imposed by the original authority were under Section 11AC of the Act and consequently, in all these appeals of the Revenue, the appellant has raised grounds in support of their prayer for imposing penalties on the respondents under Section 11AC, though it is apparent from the record that, in most of the cases, the adjudicating authority had not imposed any penalty under Section 11AC. The prayer in these appeals for imposition of penalties on the respondents under Section 11AC cannot be granted inasmuch as none of the show-cause notices alleged anything in support of such a penalty.
Amrit Foods (A Division Of Amrit ... vs Cce on 29 March, 2006
In the case of Amrit Foods vs. CCE 2005 (190) ELT 433 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider a similar case which arose under Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Their Lordships noted that Rule 173Q contained six clauses, the contents of which were not the same. It was held that it was necessary for the assessee to be put on notice as to the exact nature of contravention for which they were liable under Rule 173Q. In that case, any particular clause of Rule 173Q(1) was not specified in the show-cause notice and, on this ground, the Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee. The Tribunal's order was affirmed by the apex court. This decision of the apex court is in support of the respondents' case against penalty under Rule 15.
1