Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane v. Ajit Kumar D. Tannu

Bombay HC19 Apr 2007CEXA/169/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Joint appeals by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging penalties imposed by CESTAT on multiple related parties. The court held that proceedings pertained to valuation leading to penalties under Section 35G, rendering this court incompetent to hear the appeal.

What did the court decide?

All appeals dismissed. Appellants at liberty to move the Supreme Court.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Vs Ajit Kumar D… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

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

¶2

 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2006

¶3

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 M/s.Ram Laminates (I) Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent.

¶4

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2006
 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 Shri V.M.Belsare. ... Respondent.

¶5

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2006

¶6

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 M/s.Ramabatar R. Jhunjhunwala. ... Respondent.

¶7

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2006

¶8

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 M/s.Rammaica (India) Ltd. ... Respondent.

¶9

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2006

¶10

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 Shri Raj Lunkar. ... Respondent.

¶11

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 149 OF 2006

¶12

 The Commissioner of Central

¶13

 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.
 M/s.Hanuman Laminates Pvt.Ltd. ... Respondent.

¶14

 WITH
 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2006

¶15

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.

¶16

 Shri Vijay Kumar Beriwal. ... Respondent.

¶17

 WITH

¶18

 CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2006

¶19

 The Commissioner of Central
 Excise, Thane-II. ... Appellant.
 V/s.

¶20

 Shri Ajit Kumar D. Tannu ... Respondent.

¶21

 K.R.Chaudhary with S.M.Shah and N.D.Sharma
 for the appellant.

¶22

 S.P.Mathew i/b. V.B.Kanoria for the respondents.

¶23

CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and V.C.DAGA, JJ.

¶24

 DATED : 19th April 2007.

¶25

P.C. :
----

¶26

 . Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
 learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

 2. We have perused the order of the Customs,
 Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai
 ("CESTAT"). The operative part of the said order
 reads as under:

¶28

 "1. RMIL and the marketing units are
 related persons.

¶29

 2. Assessable value cannot be
 determined under Section 4(1)(a)(3) of
 the Central Excise Act as the same goods
 are sold to unrelated buyers as well
 Commissioner’s finding that the price at
 which the related parties sold the goods
 to other independent buyers has to be
 adopted for assessment is set aside.

¶30

 3. The finding of the Commissioner
 that ‘A" grade sheets were mis-declared
 as ‘C’ and ‘D’ thereby evading

¶31

 - 3 -

¶32

 appropriate duty leviable on them is
 upheld. Duty involved be calculated at
 the price at which ‘A’ grade sheets are
 sold to unrelated buyers. they duty
 leviable be re-determined.

¶33

 4. Penalties on RMIL, MPLP and Balram
 Jhunjhunwala after computing the correct
 duty as stated in (3) above.

¶34

 5. Penalties on other set aside.

¶35

 6. Confiscation of goods set aside.

¶36

 3. In the above order, the present appeal has

¶37

 been filed raising question of law with regard to
 penalties in respect of "A" grade sheets. The
 penalties on others have been set aside. The Tribunal
 while setting aside the penalties has clearly observed
 that penalties on RMPL and HMPL are not imposable as
 the records suggested that they had not received the
 mis-branded goods and had no role to play, as such no
 reason to sustain any penalties on them. The entire
 proceedings initiated are on the undervaluation of the
 goods, and based on the same penalties have been
 imposed. In the above, all the matters clearly
 pertain to valuation of goods for the purpose of
 assessment. As per section 35G of the Central Excise
 Act, 1944, appeals before this Court are incompetent.

¶38

 Hence we dismiss all the appeals. However, the
 appellants would be at liberty to move before the
 Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶39

 - 4 -

¶40

(V.C.DAGA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane v. Ajit Kumar D. Tannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane v. Ajit Kumar D. Tannu

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

M/S. Amit Weaving Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Yashwant Co-Operative Processors Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Amit Weaving Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shriram Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Pune II

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Vs Vijay Kumar Beriwal

the commissioner of central excise-thane,ii Vs m/s hanuman laminaters Pvt. Ltd.