LAKSHMAN EXPORTS LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-34
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 18,2002
LAKSHMAN EXPORTS LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
CCE DELHI -1 VS. JINDAL NICKEL AND ALLOYS LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-111] [REFERRED TO]REENA VS. MAINA BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2016-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR FOUNDRY & CASTING LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RANCHI COMMISSIONERATE, RANCHI [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
SUHASH VISHWANATH KOLAPKAR VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AT AHMEDNAGAR [LAWS(BOM)-2008-7-124] [REFERRED TO]
FLEVEL INTERNATIONAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-113] [REFERRED TO]
J AND K CIGARETTES LTD. AND ORS. VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-320] [REFERRED TO]
COMET TECHNOCOM P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
KANPUR CIGARETTES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-498] [REFERRED TO]
MAKSOOD AHMAD VS. SMT. DROPADI & ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-187] [REFERRED TO]
NIMISH SUNIL AGARWAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. PURE PHARMA LTD. VS. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MPH)-2023-6-84] [REFERRED TO]
VEER SINGH KOTHARI VS. STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MR MOHAMMED MUZZAMIL VS. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS CBIC [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTI BHUTADA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (CSI AIRPORT) [LAWS(CE)-2011-1-82] [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEV GARG VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-321] [REFERRED TO]
TELESTAR TRAVELS PVT. LTD VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT [LAWS(SC)-2013-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PATNA VS. GHANSHYAM PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE PURUSHOTTAM PRASAD [LAWS(PAT)-2010-3-322] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT VYAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-10-4] [REFERRED TO]
CENTURION LABORATORIES VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2005-9-104] [REFERRED]
SAMPAD NARAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2019-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
SADHAN SAHKARI SAMITI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P THRU SECY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-119] [REFERRED TO]
RIMJHIM ISPAT LIMITED AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-11-112] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. PARMARTH IRON PVT LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2010-11-98] [REFERRED TO]
HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
JASS KANN INTERNATIONAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-262] [REFERRED TO]
MARWAL SEWASHRAM VS. CUSTOMS [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-349] [REFERRED TO]
MANISH KUMAR RAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2021-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG CASTINGS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. VS. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX [LAWS(CE)-2015-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-9-227] [REFERRED]
RAJKUMAR GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2021-1-49] [REFERRED TO]
GEE DIAMOND PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T. [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-177] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHANTILALA ADANI MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. SPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE [LAWS(GJH)-2013-7-547] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SHIMLA VS. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-38] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI VS. BALAJEE PERFUMES [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
SHREE MAHALAKSHMI STRUCTURES PVT. LTD. & ANR. VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI A L JALALUDEEN ALIAS CHELLAVAPPA VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE SHASTRI BHAVAN [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-273] [REFERRED TO]
KIRIT SHRIMANKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF CGST [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-146] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMT. SUNITA DHADDA AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-296] [REFERRED TO]
PREETI DAGA VS. CC, NEW DELHI [LAWS(CE)-2010-3-63] [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI STEELS PVT. LTD VS. COMMR. OF CUS. AND C. EX. [LAWS(APH)-2011-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-166] [REFERRED TO]
TIRUPATI CIGARETTES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-175] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)We have heard learned counsel.
(2.)There was a difference of opinion between two Members of the Tribunal and the matter was referred to the President. The difference of opinion arose because of the findings of the Vice-President of the Tribunal that the principles of natural justice had not been observed and that the assessee had suffered thereby. The President, however, did not agree and he held that there had been no request by the assessee to cross-examine the representatives of the two concerns to show that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of account and appropriate duty had been paid. He also observed that he failed to understand the logic behind the request for cross-examination. We find that, in the reply to the show cause notice, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of these two concerns to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of account and the appropriate amount of Central Excise Duty had been paid. The logic of such request is clear from what is stated therein.
(3.)It is now not contested that the matter should go back to the assessing authority, who shall hear the matter de novo after ensuring that lacunae pointed out in the order of the Vice-President are met.
(2.)There was a difference of opinion between two Members of the Tribunal and the matter was referred to the President. The difference of opinion arose because of the findings of the Vice-President of the Tribunal that the principles of natural justice had not been observed and that the assessee had suffered thereby. The President, however, did not agree and he held that there had been no request by the assessee to cross-examine the representatives of the two concerns to show that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of account and appropriate duty had been paid. He also observed that he failed to understand the logic behind the request for cross-examination. We find that, in the reply to the show cause notice, the assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of these two concerns to establish that the goods in question had been accounted for in their books of account and the appropriate amount of Central Excise Duty had been paid. The logic of such request is clear from what is stated therein.
(3.)It is now not contested that the matter should go back to the assessing authority, who shall hear the matter de novo after ensuring that lacunae pointed out in the order of the Vice-President are met.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.