FLEVEL INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(DLH)-2015-9-113
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
September 17,2015
Flevel International
Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
KANUNGO & CO. V. C.C. CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]GTC INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE,NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
CESTAT IN ARYA FIBRES PVT. LTD. V. CCE,AHMEDABAD -II [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD. V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMAN EXPORTS LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX VS. VISHWA TRADERS P LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEV GARG VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SAAKEEN ALLOYS (P.) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
J AND K CIGARETTES LTD. AND ORS. VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. SHAKTI ZARDA FACTORY (I) LTD. [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VS. VENKATESWARA SILK MILLS [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-10-16] [REFERRED TO]HIM LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-180] [REFERRED TO]
NAMAN GUPTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT AND GENERAL [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-115] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI VS. BALAJEE PERFUMES [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('CE Act') is directed against an order dated 22nd November, 2012 passed by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") by the majority of 2:1.
(2.)By the order dated 22nd July, 2014 while admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:
"Whether the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding demand of Rs.58,54,825/- and confiscation of 24 air-conditioners along with duty and penalty demand of Rs.3,16,800/- is perverse and contrary to the facts on record?"
Background facts
(3.)The Appellant, a proprietory concern of which Mrs. Neera Khanna is the sole Proprietrix, was engaged in the manufacturing of air-conditioners. The Appellant is also stated to be engaged in the trading of compressors, water coolers, transformers etc. It was a small scale unit and registered as such with the Central Excise Department. It was exempted from payment of excise duty on that basis.
(2.)By the order dated 22nd July, 2014 while admitting this appeal, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:
"Whether the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding demand of Rs.58,54,825/- and confiscation of 24 air-conditioners along with duty and penalty demand of Rs.3,16,800/- is perverse and contrary to the facts on record?"
Background facts
(3.)The Appellant, a proprietory concern of which Mrs. Neera Khanna is the sole Proprietrix, was engaged in the manufacturing of air-conditioners. The Appellant is also stated to be engaged in the trading of compressors, water coolers, transformers etc. It was a small scale unit and registered as such with the Central Excise Department. It was exempted from payment of excise duty on that basis.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.