Remanded

The Commissioner of Central Excise -THANE-1 v. M/S Colour Chem Limited

Bombay HC16 Aug 2007CEXA/191/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal which had proceeded solely on the judgment in CCE vs. Machino Montell. The Court noted that the referenced judgment was later reversed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court and distinguished Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Gavraw Marticle Ltd.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 1st September, 2005 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

The Commissioner of Central Excise -THANE-1 Vs M/S Colour… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

MGN

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 CENTRAL EXCISE ALPPEAL NO.191 OF 2006

¶6

 The Commissioner of Central Excise
 Thane-1. ..Appellant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

 M/s.Colour Chem Limited. ..Respondents

¶9

 Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. K.R.Chaudhari and Mr.
 H.P. Chaturvedi, for the Appellant.
 Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. P.D.S. Legal for
 Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
S.R.SATHE,JJ.
DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2007

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 . The Revenue had framed three questions of

¶13

 law in para.4 of the Appeal memo. It is also
 pointed out that the learned Tribunal proceeded
 solely by relying on the judgment in CCE vs.
 M/s.Machino Montell (I) Ltd. (2004 (168) ELT 466
 (Tri.L.B.). It is pointed out that this judgment is
 subsequently reversed by the Punjab & Haryana High
 Court.

¶14

 2. On the other hand on behalf of the

¶15

 respondents learned Counsel points out that this
 Court has taken the view that if the amount is paid
 before issuance of the show cause notice then no
 penalty can be imposed. For that purpose he places

¶16

 (-2-)

¶17

 reliance on Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-1
 vs. Gavraw Merticle Ltd., 2005 (190) E.L.T.11. It
 is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the
 respondents that what has to be considered are the
 consequences. If the show cause notice is seen, it
 is submitted, it is not the contention of the
 Revenue that there was any fraud and consequently
 what would be applicable is Section 11AA as if then
 stood as far as interest is concerned.

¶18

 3. We have considered the argument. We find
 that that these contentions have not been considered
 by the learned tribunal as it proceeded solely based
 on the judgment in CCE vs. M/s.Machino Montell
 (supra).

¶19

 4. In the light of that and without answering
 the questions of law as framed by the Appellants
 herein we set aside the impugned order dated 1st
 September, 2005 and remand the matter back to the
 Tribunal for reconsideration according to law. We

¶20

 make it clear that we have not decided any issue on
 merits and leave all questions raised here or
 otherwise available for consideration by the
 Tribunal. Appeal disposed of accordingly. No order
 as to costs.

¶21

 (S.R.SATHE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)

The Commissioner of Central Excise -THANE-1 v. M/S Colour Chem Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Central Excise -THANE-1 v. M/S Colour Chem Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Ram Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissione of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs Shri Sunil Pran Sikand

State of Maharashtra and the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board Vs Suryadarshan Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Excise Pune - III Commissionerate, Pune Vs M/S Kirloskar Pneumatics Company Ltd.

the commissioner of central excise and customs vapi Vs m/s. vishesh dhatu industries

The Commissioner of Central of Excise -Daman Vs Bichem Pharmaceutical Industries