High Court allowed Central Excise appeal. Bench quashed CESTAT order relying on Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning, restoring matter for fresh decision on merits.
Case restored to CESTAT file for fresh decision on merits; matter disposed of.
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.
hvn
1
CEXA190.06
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2006
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman ..... Appellant
Versus
M/s. Alaska Industries ..... Respondent
Mr. J.B. Mishra for the appellant.
Mr. Sureshchandra Shahji, the Accountant, the representative of the Respondent Company present.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR &
R.D. DHANUKA, JJ. DATE : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2012.
P.C. :
India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238)
hvn
2
CEXA190.06
ELT 3 (SC) we quash and set aside the impugned order of CESTAT and restore the matter to the file of CESTAT for fresh decision on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
(R.D. DHANUKA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order setting aside the penalty under Rule 173-Q r/w Sec. 11 AC of Central Excise Rules/Act, 1944 is proper?
Whether CESTAT correctly held that no penalty can be imposed under S. 11AC when duty was paid before the show-cause notice but not voluntarily?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving MillsFollowed¶19
Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman
M/s. Alaska Industries
J.P. Devadhara
R.D. Dhanka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
