Allowed

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai v. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur

Bombay HC13 Feb 2015CEL/3/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed cross-appeals filed by Revenue and Assessee against CESTAT orders. The court remanded the matter to CESTAT for fresh decision, directing consideration of rival submissions on both sides within three months. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Remitting the matter back to CESTAT for fresh decision after considering rival submissions within three months. No order as to costs.

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

CEL32-14&3-15.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

¶4

Central Excise Appeal No.32/2014

¶5

(The Commissioner Central Excise, Commissionerate Nagpur II..vs. M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd. )

¶6

with

¶7

Central Excise Appeal No.3/2015 (Larsen & Toubro Ltd.vs.The Commissioner ,Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur. )

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders.

¶10

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for Appellant in CEL 32/2014

¶11

Mr. Prakash Shah Advocate with Mr. Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Respondent in CEL 32/2014.

¶12

Mr. Prakash Shah Advocate with Mr. Rahul Tajne, Advocate for Appellant in CEL 3/2015.

¶13

Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent in CEL 3/2015

¶14

CORAM : B.R. Gavai &

¶15

Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ. DATED : February 13, 2015.

¶16

Both these cross-appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as the Assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CESTAT dated 23.07.2014.

¶17

The appeal before the CESTAT was filed by assessee challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur thereby confirming the order passed by the Assessing Authority and demanding dues to the tune of Rs.1,61,61,27,251/Rs.6,37,544/- along with interest.

¶18

The learned CESTAT cursorily observed in para 3.2 that the extended period of limitation is not invokable and, therefore, the goods are not liable for confiscation. The learned CESTAT also observed that the

¶19

¶20

CEL32-14&3-15.odt

¶21

penalties in the present case are not warranted. While observing this, the learned CESTAT have also observed that the appellants have no case on merits.

¶22

The Assessee is aggrieved with that part of the order wherein it is stated that the appellants have no case on merits whereas the Revenue is aggrieved with the findings of the learned CESTAT that the extended period of limitation was not invokable. We find that in the interest of justice both the appeals deserve to be allowed by remitting the matter back to the learned Members of the CESTAT for considering the issue afresh by considering the rival submissions on behalf of both the parties.

¶23

The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding it afresh in accordance with the law after considering the rival submissions. The same shall be done within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

halwai

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai v. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Larsen and Toubro Limited, Mumbai v. the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Umesh S/O Purushottam Agrawal Vs State Bank of India, through Its Branch Manager, Nagpur and 2 Others

Khwaja Safiruddin S/O Shahabuddin Vs Somaiyya Polythecnic, Macron Students Academy School, Wadgaon Thr. Secty., Priti P. Ambatkar and 2

Mohd. Asad Abdul Gaffar Rangunwala Thr. His Duly Constituted Attorney, Mr. Ravi S/O R. Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra through Honable Minister/Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and 2

The Commissioner Central Excise, Commissioner Nagpur Ii, Nagpur Vs M/S Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Nagpur

Tejas Dhondubaji Garmade Vs the State of Maha, through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department Department, Mumbai and 2 Ot

Nitin Yeshwantrao Khapre Vs State of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Dept. of Tribal Development and Another