Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Hari Concast P. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Apr 2009CEA/35/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise challenging the Tribunal's order. The court noted that proceedings for penalty were initiated after the expiry of the five-year reasonable limitation period and found no ground to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, the Tribunal's order was upheld, and no interference was granted.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.E.A. No. 35 of 2007

¶4

Date of decision: April 20, 2009

¶5

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh

¶6

....Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Hari Concast (P) Ltd.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶12

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India (Indirect Taxes), for the appellant.

¶13

Mr. Sudeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶14

Whether Reporters of local papers may be

¶15

allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶18

M.M.KUMAR, J.

¶19

The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 3.8.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’).

¶20

It is conceded position that proceedings against the respondentassessee for imposing penalty were initiated after the expiry of period of five years. Although there is no statutory period of limitation yet reasonable period of limitation for initiating proceedings is five years. In that regard

¶21

¶22

C.E.A. No. 35 of 2007

¶23

reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Cooperative Milk

¶24

Producers Union Ltd., (2007) 11 SCC 363 . It has been held that if no provision is made regarding period of limitation for exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, then maximum period of five years is regarded as reasonable period. Therefore, we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal does not warrant admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶25

( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE

¶26

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) April 20, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Hari Concast P. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Hari Concast P. Ltd.

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

C.I.T. Patiala Vs M/S Sant Ram Mangat Ram Chd.

Subhash Bansal and Ors. Vs Income Tax Officer and Ors.

M/S Dalu Ram Ram Chander Vs C.I.T. Jdr.

Piccadily Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Johnson Matthey India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Industrial Organics Ltd. Vs State of Pb and Ors.