Commr. of C. Ex. Vs. Araco Automative India Pvt. Ltd.

Commr. of C. Ex. vs Araco Automative India Pvt. Ltd.

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Jun 05, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/844586

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/844586
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: R. Gururajan and ;Jawad Rahim, JJ.
Decided On: Jun 05, 2006
Case Number: Central Excise Appeal No. 4 of 2006
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

- Sections 458-A, 446: [V.G. Sabhahit, J] Application by Official Liquidator for recovery of dues of company Limitation Period of limitation had already expired when the winding up proceedings commenced Question whether the period from which application was filed before B.I.F.R. and time taken before AAIFR is ex...

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Appeal dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commr. of C. Ex.

Advocate Y. Hariprasad, Adv.

Respondent

Araco Automative India Pvt. Ltd.

Excerpt

- sections 458-a, 446: [v.g. sabhahit, j] application by official liquidator for recovery of dues of company limitation period of limitation had already expired when the winding up proceedings commenced question whether the period from which application was filed before b.i.f.r. and time taken before aaifr is excludable? held, no. it is clear from the provisions of section 458-a that the period which has to be excluded has been specifically stated in the said section and the period from which the winding up proceedings commenced till the passing of the order of winding up and one year thereafter is the period to be excluded and the application before the bifr cannot be said to be an application for winding up.r. gururajan and jawad rahim, jj.1. this appeal is filed by the department. the department aggrieved by the final order no. 875-877/2005 of the tribunal dated 6.6.2005 has chosen to file this appeal by raising the following questions of law:(a) whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the relevant date of payment of duty and interest is the date on which the goods are cleared from the factory?(b) whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the escalation of prices of cleared goods or revision of rates of duty due to change of classification will not have effect on the date of clearance of goods, whereas there is in implication of duty and interest as the relevant date was the demand of duty and interest with the date of clearance of goods and not the date of escalation of rate revision due to change in classification of goods?2. we have today, disposed of a similar appeal in cea no. 1/2006 and in the said judgment we have accepted the order passed by the tribunal. in the light of the order passed by us in cea no. 1/2006, we are of the view that impugned order does not require any interference. no question of law arises for our consideration and the order of the tribunal is based on facts and in terms of a judgment of this court reported in 2004 (168) e.l.t. 466.3. appeal stands rejected without being admitted.

Full Judgment

R. Gururajan and Jawad Rahim, JJ.

1. This appeal is filed by the department. The department aggrieved by the final Order No. 875-877/2005 of the tribunal dated 6.6.2005 has chosen to file this appeal by raising the following questions of law:

(a) Whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the relevant date of payment of duty and interest is the date on which the goods are cleared from the factory?

(b) Whether the tribunal was correct in allowing the appeal when the issue regarding the escalation of prices of cleared goods or revision of rates of duty due to change of classification will not have effect on the date of clearance of goods, whereas there is in implication of duty and interest as the relevant date was the demand of duty and interest with the date of clearance of goods and not the date of escalation of rate revision due to change in classification of goods?

2. We have today, disposed of a similar appeal in CEA No. 1/2006 and in the said judgment we have accepted the order passed by the tribunal. In the light of the order passed by us in CEA No. 1/2006, we are of the view that impugned order does not require any interference. No question of law arises for our consideration and the order of the tribunal is based on facts and in terms of a judgment of this Court reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 466.

3. Appeal stands rejected without being admitted.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2006 Same Parties Commr. of C. Ex. vs Araco Automative India Pvt. Ltd. Same Subject Excise Same Judge R. Gururajan and ;Jawad Rahim, JJ.

Excise