Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/S.Swathy Cables and Conductors Pvt. Lt

Kerala HC23 Feb 2016C.E.Appeal/2/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs appealed against CESTAT order. High Court held that amended Section 11A had prospective effect and notice issued after six months of July 1999 was time-barred under law then. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs is dismissed; the impugned order of the CESTAT stands affirmed.

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs M/S.Swathy… — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/4TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

C.E.Appeal.No. 2 of 2009 ( )

¶6

------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER NO 1006/2008 DATED 19.08.2008 IN APPEAL NO.E/826/2002-CE ON THE FILES OF THE CESTAT, BANGALORERECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT ON 17-09-2008

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:

¶8

COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE AND CUTOMS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT:

¶11

M/S.SWATHY CABLES AND CONDUCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, MANVILA, KULATHOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-699 083.

¶12

R BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

¶13

SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶14

THIS CENTRAL EXICISE APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

C.E.Appeal.No. 2 of 2009 ( )

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.9/98 CE DATED 02.06.1998. ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.9/99 CE DATED 28.02.1999. ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.06.2000 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.08.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶20

ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL NO.6/2001 DATED NIL PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.250/2002 CE DATED 24.04.2002 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN. ANNEXURE G: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.1006/2008 DATED 19.08.2008 OF THE CESTAT, BANGALORE.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

P.A TO JUDGE

¶24

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶25

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶26

C.E.A.No.2 of 2009

¶27

Dated this the 23^nd day of February, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶30

1.We have heard the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Central Board of Excise and Customs and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶31

2.Under challenge in this appeal is a decision of the CESTAT which relates to two grounds. The first ground is as regards the liability of the assessee as a result of crossing the clearance value of 3,00,00,000/-, though technically, the₹ department was justified in taking a stand against the assessee. The CESTAT, in our view, had rightly held that the show cause notice was issued after six months of the date of invoices issued in July, 1999 and the amendment of Section 11A enabling one year as a normal period of limitation was brought into force only on 12.05.2000 and that such

¶32

¶33

CEA.No.2/2009

¶34

amendment has only prospective effect. Therefore, on that ground the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the stand of the department.

¶35

As regards the time bar, the Tribunal was justified in following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Military Dairy Farm v. CCE, Pune [1985 (19) ELT 148 (Tribunal)]. This way also, there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal at the instance of the revenue.

¶36

4.For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails.

¶37

In the result, this appeal is dismissed.

¶38

Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶39

Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

CEA.No.2/2009

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/S.Swathy Cables and Conductors Pvt. Lt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/S.Swathy Cables and Conductors Pvt. Lt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Excel Thread Industry,Cochin Vs Commr.of Central Excise (Adjudication)

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S.Abba Rubbers

Commissioner, Central Excise Vs M/S.Eurospin Industries Ltd.

The Commissioner, Central Excise Vs M/S. Glass Fibres Ltd., Kottayam

Itel Industries Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Shri.C.Krishna Kumar