LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label central excise act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label central excise act. Show all posts
Thursday, January 10, 2013

The respondent had availed the benefit of the licence being fully aware of the Rules, notification and the terms incorporated in the licence. The Rules provide that he has to pay from the date of the settlement and in this case, the settlement took place on 5th June, 2006. In view of what has been engrafted in the Rules, there cannot be any trace of doubt that the respondent has to be made liable to pay the licence fee from the date of the settlement. There could not have been condonation of default. Such a concept is alien to the present nature of trade and a licencee cannot claim any benefit under the same as the whole thing is governed by the command of the Rules. That apart, we are unable to subscribe to the interpretation placed by the High Court that the auction-purchaser is liable to pay from the date of issuance of licence but not from the date of the settlement as that runs counter to the plain language of Rule 24. Reading the Rules in a comprehensive manner in juxtaposition with the notification which forms the terms and conditions of the licence and the nature of the trade, the irresistible conclusion is that the liability accrued from the date of the settlement and, therefore, we find that the order passed by the Excise Commissioner was just and proper and there was no warrant on the part of the High Court to interfere with the same. 32. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the Excise Commissioner is restored. The parties shall bear their respective costs.

›
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIV...
Monday, February 27, 2012

Central Excise Tarriff act, 1985-Chapter Heading 19.04 & 21.07 (remoulded as Chapter Heading 21.08 during AY 1996-97)-Assessee making `puffs' by swelling/roasting of cereals-Demand raised on accessee on ground of misdeclaration of product-Confirmed by authorities below as well as Tribunal-Main question required to be decided was whether the `puffs' would fall under Chapter Heading 19.04 or under Chapter Heading 21.07 (remoulded as Chapter Heading 21.08 during AY 1996-97)-But Tribunal gave no finding as to whether `puffs' would fall under the Chapter Heading 19.04-It did not consider various important issues questions-Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for fresh determination. Assessee manufactures `puffs' from cereals, namely wheat and soya nuts. The product is packed in unit containers and supplied to Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) in Haryana. Department issued show cause notice raising demand on the assessee for mis-declaration of the said products as `chabena/prasad'. It was further alleged that the products were sold in the market under the brand name `bonton' as breakfast cereals, high in protein and low in cholesterol and also sold to five star hospitals and public schools. In the circumstances, the assessee was asked to pay Rs.2.31 crores as duty. The demand was confirmed by the authorities below as well as the Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.

›
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The `puffs' prepared from cereals cannot fall within the item `Prasad/prasadam'. To that ...
Monday, February 13, 2012

the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"). By the impugned order the Tribunal has quashed the additional excise duty demand of `9,34,89,367/- under Section 11A of the Act; penalties of `1.5 crores each on respondent Nos.1 and 2 1 =whether the Assessee and Heinz are related persons. It based its decision solely on the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority "that the status of the Assessee was not better than that of a hired labour". We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the light of the above discussion, it would be necessary for the Tribunal to examine in depth the agreement between the Assessee and Heinz as also any other additional material, the 16

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ...
Friday, August 26, 2011

The material facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of insulated wires and cables falling under Central Excise Tariff Sub-

›
                                            1                                                         REPORTABLE                 IN...