SANTOGEN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAVI MUMBAI, (BOMBAY)(DB)
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-236
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 25,2017

SANTOGEN TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner Of C. Ex., Navi Mumbai, (Bombay)(Db) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.P.COLABAWALLA, J. - (1.) All these three Appeals have been filed, assailing a common order dated 28th May, 2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the "CESTAT"). Under the impugned order, the CESTAT upheld the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 5,26,56,632/- along with interest. In addition thereto, the penalty imposed on Santogen Textile Mills Ltd. (for short, "STML") was reduced to Rs. 25,00,000/- and the penalty imposed on Mr. Manikchand G. Sharma (a Director of STML) was reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
(2.) Central Excise Appeal No. 213 of 2007 has been filed by STML whereas Central Excise Appeal No. 263 of 2007 has been filed by Mr. Manikchand G. Sharma (a Director of STML). These appeals assail the impugned order insofar as they have confirmed the demand of duty as well as imposition of penalty. Central Excise Appeal No. 105 of 2010 has been filed by the Revenue insofar as the penalty was reduced, not only against STML but also against Mr. Manikchand G. Sharma. Since all these three appeals assail the common impugned order dated 28th May, 2007, they all are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) As far as Central Excise Appeal No. 213 of 2007 is concerned, the said Appeal was admitted on 17th March, 2009 on the following substantial questions of law :- (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is right in sustaining the duty demand from the appellant and imposition of penalty on the appellant? (2) Whether the appellant as buyer of the goods is liable to pay duty or the duty is payable by the manufacturer EOUs? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is right in holding that the goods after taking delivery are not brought into 100% EOU export and not used in the manufacture of export? (4) Whether the Tribunal was right in not following the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Benches of the Appellate Tribunal passed in the case of Carrier Aircon Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. 170 (Tri. - Del.) and in the case of CCE v. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 656? (5) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, duty will be payable by the consignor or the consignee, in terms of Notification No. 1/95, dated 4th January, 1995? ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.