Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai v. Vs M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Bombay HC7 Jun 2006CEXA/4/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's appeal reducing penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Revenue filed this second appeal but found non-maintainable. The court dismissed the appeal as misconceived on locus standi, noting Revenue cannot appeal an order not favoring it when no independent appeal is pending.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed on the ground of locus with no order as to costs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai v Vs M/S. Mahindra and… — Corruption | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.4 OF 2004

¶4

 Commissioner of Central Excise .. Appellant.
 V/s.

¶5

 M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra (TD) .. Respondent.

¶6

 Mr.R.V. Desai, senior advocate for the appellant.

¶7

 Mr.Madhur Baya for the respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : V.C. DAGA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶9

 DATED : 7TH JUNE, 2006.
P.C. :

¶10

 Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.
 Perused appeal memo with other documents.

¶11

 2. The appellant has raised following substantial
 questions of law :

¶12

 1. Whether the CESTAT was correct in
 confirming the order-in-Appeal, reducing the
 mandatory penalty imposed under Section 11AC of
 Central Excise Act, 1944 from Rs.13,36,453/- to
 Rs.1,00,000/- ?

¶13

 2. Whether the penalty imposed under
 Section 11AC is a mandatory penalty equal to the
 duty demanded under proviso to Section 11A or is
 the maximum imposable penalty ?

¶14

 2. The present appeal is at the instance of the

¶15

 Revenue. In our considered opinion, this appeal itself
 is not maintainable, since the impugned order is in

¶16

¶17

 favour of the Revenue. The Revenue can hardly said to
 be aggrieved by the impugned order. By the impugned
 order appeal filed by the respondent came to be
 dismissed which the Revenue was opposing before
 Tribunal.

¶18

 3. It is needless to mention that if the revenue
 has challenged the order of the first appellate
 authority before the tribunal reducing penalty and if
 that appeal has met with adverse order, then it would be
 open for the revenue to challenge that order by filing
 independent appeal. However, the question involved in
 their appeal cannot be allowed to be raised in the
 present appeal.

¶19

 4. In the result, the appeal is misconceived.
 Hence, dismissed on the ground of locus with no order as
 to costs.

¶20

 (V.C. DAGA, J.)

¶21

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai v. Vs M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai v. Vs M/S. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhusudan C. Parikh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-Xvi

rbi oers optees association Vs central board of directt taxes and 3 Ors.

M/S. Parakh Loniwala and Sons Vs Commissioner of Income Tax City-Xxii

the commissioner of central excise belapur commissioerate Vs m/s m.j.biopharm Pvt. Ltd.

Usha Ispat Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune

The Comm. of Cen.Excise Mumbai v. Vs M/S.Indabrator Ltd. Bombay