MAURIA UDYOG LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI II
LAWS(SC)-2002-8-81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 16,2002
MAURIA UDYOG LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,DELHI
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
UNION OF INDIA VS. INANI CARRIERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-11-33] [REFERRED TO]STATE OF HARYANA VS. KUNDAN LAL [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
BALWINDER SINGH ALIAS BILLA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI - III VS. M/S VEE GEE FAUCETS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2013-5-104] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD [LAWS(BOM)-2008-12-184] [REFERRED TO]
THIRD MEMBER ON REFERENCE : SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (J) COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHAVNAGAR VS. NAV BHARAT STEELS RE-ROLLING [LAWS(CE)-2010-8-42] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI VS. PEARL DRINKS LTD [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
TRUE WOODS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM [LAWS(CE)-2008-3-89] [REFERRED TO]
C.C. & C.EX., MEERUT II VS. M/S DHAMPUR SUGAR MILLS LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2010-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
SWASTIK FRAGRANCES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-8-176] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)A show cause notice that was issued to the appellant resulted in confirmation of the demand of Rs. 12,24,492/-on the ground that freight expenses from appellant's factory to the buyers place were includible in the assessable value/in addition to confirmation of demand, penalty of the like amount was also imposed on the appellant and interest was also held payable. In appeal, the commissioner of central excise (appeals) maintained the order of adjudication but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 4.5 lacs. Two appeals were filed before customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal; one by the appellant and another by the revenue. The revenue challenged in its appeal the order of the commissioner (appeals) to the extent of reduction of penalty amount. In the appeal of the appellant a conditional order of pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 lacs was made by the tribunal for entertaining the appeal. The High court in the writ petition declined to interfere with the said order of pre-deposit. The time for making deposit was, however, extended by the High Court up to 11th December, 2000. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the tribunal on 12th December, 2000 noticing, inter alia, that the appellant had not deposited the amount. In view thereof the tribunal directed that the appeal was not properly constituted and directed it to be struck off the register.
(3.)The appellant filed an application for restoration. When the said application came up, it was represented on behalf of the revenue that in the meanwhile the appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the commissioner (appeals) had been dismissed by the tribunal and consequently the impugned order of the commissioner got merged in the order of the tribunal and, therefore, the appellant's appeal cannot be entertained. Accepting that submission, the tribunal by the impugned order held that the appeal filed by the appellant could not be dealt with on merits as the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) got merged in the order of the tribunal as a result of the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue. Therefore, the application and appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
(2.)A show cause notice that was issued to the appellant resulted in confirmation of the demand of Rs. 12,24,492/-on the ground that freight expenses from appellant's factory to the buyers place were includible in the assessable value/in addition to confirmation of demand, penalty of the like amount was also imposed on the appellant and interest was also held payable. In appeal, the commissioner of central excise (appeals) maintained the order of adjudication but reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 4.5 lacs. Two appeals were filed before customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal; one by the appellant and another by the revenue. The revenue challenged in its appeal the order of the commissioner (appeals) to the extent of reduction of penalty amount. In the appeal of the appellant a conditional order of pre-deposit of Rs. 2.5 lacs was made by the tribunal for entertaining the appeal. The High court in the writ petition declined to interfere with the said order of pre-deposit. The time for making deposit was, however, extended by the High Court up to 11th December, 2000. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the tribunal on 12th December, 2000 noticing, inter alia, that the appellant had not deposited the amount. In view thereof the tribunal directed that the appeal was not properly constituted and directed it to be struck off the register.
(3.)The appellant filed an application for restoration. When the said application came up, it was represented on behalf of the revenue that in the meanwhile the appeal of the revenue filed against the order of the commissioner (appeals) had been dismissed by the tribunal and consequently the impugned order of the commissioner got merged in the order of the tribunal and, therefore, the appellant's appeal cannot be entertained. Accepting that submission, the tribunal by the impugned order held that the appeal filed by the appellant could not be dealt with on merits as the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals) got merged in the order of the tribunal as a result of the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue. Therefore, the application and appeal of the appellant was dismissed.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.