ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Shyam Sundar Co Jewellers Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…CEXA NO. 25 OF 2021 Page 1 of 20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CENTRAL EXCISE) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 04.04.2022 DELIVERED ON: 18.04.2022 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA IA NO. GA/02/2021 IN CEXA NO. 25 OF 2021 COMMISSIONER OF CENRAL EXCISE, HALDIA COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S. TATA STEEL LIMITED (BEARING DIVISION) Appearance:- Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. S. Seal, Adv. Mr. B. Bhatta…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…CEXA NO. 25 OF 2021 Page 1 of 20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CENTRAL EXCISE) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 04.04.2022 DELIVERED ON: 18.04.2022 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA IA NO. GA/02/2021 IN CEXA NO. 25 OF 2021 COMMISSIONER OF CENRAL EXCISE, HALDIA COMMISSIONERATE VERSUS M/S. TATA STEEL LIMITED (BEARING DIVISION) Appearance:- Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. S. Seal, Adv. Mr. B. Bhatta…

Commnr. of Customs, Mumbai vs. M/S. Mmk Jewellers

Appeals are dismissed on the ground of limitation, therefore, we do not

…uppression or misstatement and that, therefore, the extended period under Section 11-A could not be invoked. 44. This case was followed in the subsequent judgment of this court in ECE Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi (2004) 13 SCC 719. In this case, this court again held that as there is no suppression, penalty cannot be imposed. 45. This court relied on these judgments in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v Collector of Central Excise, A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 573. In this case, this court again reiterated the legal position and held that when there is no suppression…

M/S. Larsen & Toubro Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Pune-II

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act. It Undertook A Contract For Construction Of Bridges For M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (’Konkan Railway’, For Short), Which Is A Public Sector Undertaking. Appellant Manufactured Pre Stressed Concrete Girders (Psc Girders). It Used To Transport Them To The Site Of Construction Of Bridges Of The Railways. It Did Not Register Itself With The Authorities Of The Central Excise. 2. Alleging That The Appellant, For The Period March 1993 & December 1994, Although Was Involved In The Manufacturing Activity, By Undertaking Manufacture Of 75 Psc Girders, But Did Not Pay Any Excise Duty Thereupon. 3. A Notice Was Issued To The Appellant Directing It To Show Cause As To Why Central Excise Duty To The Tune Of Rs.32,35,575/- Should Not Be Demanded & Recovered From Them In Terms Of The Proviso Appended To Rule 49(1) Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) Read With Section 11A Of The Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (Act) & As To Why Penalty Should Not Be Imposed On Them & The Plant & Machinery & The Manufactured Goods Should Not Be Confiscated. Cause Was Shown By The Appellant Inter Alia Stating That No Excise Duty Was Payable. The Said Notice Was Withdrawn Stating: "The Said Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued Without Obtaining Approval Of The Proper Authority Or By The Proper Officer. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice Dated 27.1.94 Hereby Withdrawn.

…that there was no suppression of facts on the part of the assessee/appellant." 18. In the said decision, this Court followed the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in ECE Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2004) 13 SCC 719 = 2004 (164) ELT 236, wherein it was categorically stated: "6. Appellant was served with a second SCN by the Collector on 16.7.1987 alleging that the appellant was supplying carbon dioxide to another unit as per agreement dated 19.3.1983; that they had not taken necessary licence; had not followed the procedure prescribed under the rules…