Disposed

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. v. M/S Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2017FA/746/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Delhi Bench ordered the First Appeal to be disposed of as infructuous. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court held the appeal was no longer maintainable. Pending civil applications were also disposed of.

What did the court decide?

First Appeal No. 746 of 2006 disposed of as infructuous; pending civil application disposed of.

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad. Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

(1) WP No .746/2006

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 OF 2006

¶4

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs

¶5

Town Centre, N-5, CIDCO, Aurangabad

¶6

… Appellant .

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Aurangabad Electricals Ltd. A-23, M.I.D.C. Waluj, Aurangabad and others

¶9

… Respondent .

¶10

¶11

Mr. D.S. Ladda, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mrs. Charuta S. Deshmukh, Advocate respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶13

¶14

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶15

Dated : 24.08.2017.

¶16

ORAL ORDER :-

¶17

By this First Appeal filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the appellant has impugned the order dated 20.12.2005 passed by CESTAT, Mumbai thereby reducing the penalty

¶18

(2) WP No .746/2006

¶19

to Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh).

¶20

By an order dated 28.08.2006 while admitting this appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated.

¶21

1. Whether the order passed by the learned CESTAT, Mumbai to the extent of reducing penalty to Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed under Section 11-AC is proper and legal?

¶22

2. Whether the learned CESTAT, Mumbai is right in reducing the penalty imposed despite the fact that it was established that the respondent had suppressed the fact with an intent to evade the duty?

¶23

3. Whether the order passed by the learned CESTAT, Mumbai dated 20.12.2005 is bad in law and hence, needs to be quashed and set aside?

¶24

Mr. D.S. Ladda, learned Counsel for the appellant invited

¶25

our attention to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Aurangabad Electricals (P) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad , reported in [ (2011) AIR (SCW) 1435 ], which petition was filed by the Assessee herein before the Supreme Court. He submits that in view of the said judgment, this First Appeal filed by the Revenue has become infractuous.

¶26

(3) WP No .746/2006

¶27