The High Court set aside the CESTAT\'s order deleting penalty under Section 11AC for willful misstatement, relying on a Supreme Court ruling, and restored the matter to CESTAT for de novo consideration.
Impugned CESTAT order of 06/06/2006 quashed; matter restored to CESTAT for de novo consideration.
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.
1 cexa-79-07
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No. 79 of 2007.
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,Nashik ... Appellant.
Versus
M/s Astral Glass Pvt Ltd ... Respondent.
Mr Vijay Kantharia with Mandar Goswami for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ.
DATE : 1 March, 2012.
P.C. :-
questions of law.
1 of 1
2 cexa-79-07
misstatement and the assessee is liable for penalty under Section 11AC of the Act equal to the duty so determined and also liable for interest under Section 11AB of the Act?
the penalty by relying upon Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT in the case
of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III vs. Machino Montell (I) Ltd reported in 2004 (62) R.L.T. 709 CESTAT-LB). The said decision has been overruled by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) held that the penalty under Section 11AC is mandatory. In these circumstances, the impugned decision of the CESTAT dated 6th June, 2006 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CESTAT for de novo consideration and in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
(A.R.Joshi,J) (J.P.Devadhar,J.)
Ladda
2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the claim for concessional duty due to declaration contrary to RT-12 returns amounts to fraud under Section 11AC?
Whether the penalty and interest were rightly deleted by CESTAT relying on Machino Montell decision?
Whether Section 11AC penalty is mandatory in view of Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CCE, Delhi-III Vs. Machino Montell (I) LtdDistinguished¶21
2004 (168) E.L.T. 466 (Tri-LB)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III vs. Machino Montell (I) LtdDistinguished¶23
2004 (62) R.L.T. 709 CESTAT-LB.
Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving MillsRelied on¶23
2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik
M/s Astral Glass Pvt Ltd
J.P. Devadhar
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
