High Court quashed impugned order imposing penalty under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules. Court held that absent fraud or willful misrepresentation, Section 11A's proviso is inapplicable, barring penalty under the Rules. Penalty order set aside.
Impugned order and order directing payment of penalty quashed and set aside.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1933 OF 2006 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2123 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO.2124 OF 2006.
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.A.G.Talhar, advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr.S.G.Sangle, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.Alok Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of
India in W.P.Nos.1933,2124 of 2006.
Mr.N.S.Choudhari,Central Government counsel for
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
N.W.SAMBRE, JJ.
Date : 29.04.2014.
PER COURT :
order dated 6.9.2004 had partly allowed the appeals and the demand for duty during the normal period of limitation was only upheld. The penalty was reduced. The petitioners filed rectification application. The said rectification application was partly allowed in so far as the duty on the product (switches and parts thereof) is concerned. However, did not consider rectification application with regard to the penalty. The petitioners preferred
2
second rectification application with regard to the penalty. The same is rejected.
B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central Excise" reported in (2003) 3 SCC 599.
3
Section 11A(C) of the Central Excise Act.
(N.W.SAMBRE,J.)(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.29.04.2014. asp/office/wp1933.06
4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether penalty can be levied under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules when the proviso to Section 11A is inapplicable due to absence of fraud or willful misrepresentation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central ExciseApplied¶20
P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central Excise (2003) 3 SCC 599 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
State
Union of India
Respondent Nos.2 and 3
S.V. Gangapurwala
N.W. Sambre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court