M/S.LEADER ENGINEERING WORKS vs. COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE,JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-000939-000941 - 2010Supreme Court25 January 20102 pages
For Petitioner: SANJEEV MALHOTRA
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is to decide three specific issues de novo, including entitlement to Modvat credit and justification for duty/penalty demands.

What were the facts?

The Supreme Court heard appeals concerning the applicability of Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act and related issues of Modvat credit, duty demands, and penalties. The appellants agreed not to re-agitate the Section 11-A issue.

What were the issues?

The key issues involve the eligibility for Modvat credit and the justification of duty and penalty demands in light of prior orders and the circumstances of other parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.939-941 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13061-13063 of 2009) M/s. Leader Engineering Works Etc.Etc. ...Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides. By consent, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Having gone through the record, we are of the view that the appellants herein will not re-agitate the issue of applicability of Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act. However, the following three issues will have to be decided de novo by the Tribunal, which are as follows: “[i] Whether the appellants were entitled to Modvat Credit; [ii] Whether the Authorities were justified in demanding duty and imposing penalties in the light of the statement of the appellants that the penalty against the supplier of raw material and the importer had to be set aside and that there was no challenge to that order by the Revenue; and ...2/-

- 2 - [iii] Whether the demand of duty and imposition of penalty was justified when the demand of duty and imposition of penalty stood set aside in the case of some other parties.” Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for de novo consideration in the light of afore-stated three issues formulated by this court. The civil appeals stand disposed of with no order as to costs. ......................J. [S.H. KAPADIA] ......................J. [SWATANTER KUMAR] New Delhi, January 25, 2010.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →