Jurisprudentiol - Recent SC Judgements
CX - Appeal - Judicial Discipline - when there is conflict of opinion between two benches, Tribunal should refer the issue to a Larger Bench:
There used to be an honourable Member of the Tribunal in a particular Bench who had no respect for honourable Members of the same Tribunal in other Benches. He used to believe that he is a law unto himself.
In this case, there were two conflicting decisions of the Tribunal before this particular Bench and the Bench followed one decision and holding that the other decision was not a binding precedent. The Supreme Court observed, " After finding a conflict of opinion rendered by two coordinate Benches in the aforesaid two cases, the only course of action open for the Tribunal was to refer the matter to the larger Bench to resolve this conflict. "
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs, Kraps Chem Pvt Ltd -
Central Excise - Demand - Limitation - Suppression proved - appeal dismissed:
The assessees have suppressed the facts and contravened the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the rules made there under with intent to evade payment of duty; No doubt, the cost audit report was supplied by the P&G. However, based thereupon, it is the appellant which had worked out the final costing and it is the chartered accountant of the appellant which had prepared the said costing and submitted to the Department. Therefore, the appellant cannot feign ignorance or be pretentious about its innocence in allegedly acting upon the cost audit report as supplied by P&G.
The assessee was a job worker and the dispute started in the year 1996.
Please see Phaarmasia Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad -
Central Excise - Valuation - goods cleared at factory gate and for captive consumption in another factory not same - not comparable - Demand - limitation - no mala fide intentions - and revenue neutral - demand beyond normal period and penalty set aside:
The question is about the intention, namely, whether it was done with bona fide belief or there was some mala fide intentions in doing so. It is stated at the cost of repetition that when the entire exercise was revenue neutral, the appellant could not have achieved any purpose to evade the duty. Once it is found that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant, the penalty is set aside as well.
In this case also the duty demand period started in 1996.
Please see Nirlon Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai -
Please see Breaking News.
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in