Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. J. Mitra and Co. Ltd.

Commissioner of Central Excise vs J. Mitra and Co. Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Jan 31, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27411

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/27411
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, a T V.K.
Decided On: Jan 31, 2002
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise

Respondent

J. Mitra and Co. Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(80)ECC541

Excerpt

2. revenue filed this appeal against the portion of the adjudication order where, the commissioner of central excise held that the provisions of sections 11ac and section 11ab of central excise act are applicable only in respect of demand of the period after 28.9.96.3. the contention of the revenue is that when the commissioner in the impugned order held that there is suppression on the part of the assessee during the period in dispute, therefore, the provisions of sections 11ab and 11ac are applicable to the whole of the period in dispute.4. we find that this issue is now settled by the decision of the hon'ble karnataka high court in the case of cce v. supra foundry services (p) ltd. hon'ble high court has held that penalty under section 11ac and penal interest under section 11ab of central excise act is not leviable where the alleged offence and removal of the goods took place before introduction of these sections i.e. 28.9.96. hon'ble high court relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of cce v. elgi equipments ltd. reported in 2001 (128) elt 52 (sc). in view of the settled position of law, we find no infirmity in the impugned order.the appeal is rejected.

Full Judgment

2. Revenue filed this Appeal against the portion of the adjudication Order where, the Commissioner of Central Excise held that the provisions of Sections 11AC and Section 11AB of Central Excise Act are applicable only in respect of demand of the period after 28.9.96.

3. The contention of the Revenue is that when the Commissioner in the impugned Order held that there is suppression on the part of the assessee during the period in dispute, therefore, the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC are applicable to the whole of the period in dispute.

4. We find that this issue is now settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE v. Supra Foundry Services (P) Ltd. Hon'ble High Court has held that penalty under Section 11AC and penal interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act is not leviable where the alleged offence and removal of the goods took place before introduction of these Sections i.e. 28.9.96. Hon'ble High Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Elgi Equipments Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) ELT 52 (SC). In view of the settled position of law, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order.

The appeal is rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise vs J. Mitra and Co. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge S Kang, a T V.K.