This single-paragraph order dismisses the Commissioner's appeal questioning the imposition of central excise penalty for bonafide excess credit availment, upholding the Tribunal and Adjudicating Authority's finding of absence of fault.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
kvm
1
CEXA121.05
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2005
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – III ..... Appellant
Versus
M/s.Johnson & Johnson Limited ..... Respondents
None for the Appellant.
None for the Respondents.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
P.C. :
This Appeal was admitted on 31st January, 2006 on the following questions of
law :-
(1) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT are justified in setting aside the penalty amount imposed by the adjudication authority under Rule 57 I (4) of the Central Excise Rules when they concur with the finding of wrong availment of credit ?
(2) Whether Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT have discretionary powers to drop or reduce the penalty notwithstanding the fact that they do not find legal infirmity in the order of the adjudication in the matter of wrongful availment of modvat credit by contravening Rule 57I(I) (iii) for wrong utilization ?
(3) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT have discretion under the relevant Rule in setting aside the order for payment of interest by the assessee when it is confirmed by the adjudicating authority and the CESTAT that modvat credit was wrongly availed of by the assessee ?
kvm
2
CEXA121.05
terms with no order as to costs.
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT are justified in setting aside penalty imposed for wrong availment of credit.
Whether there is discretion to drop or reduce penalty notwithstanding no legal infirmity in the order regarding wrongful availment of credit.
Whether there is discretion to set aside an order for payment of interest when wrong availment of credit is confirmed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai – III
M/s. Johnson & Johnson Limited
JP DEVADHAR
RD DHANUKA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
