2024 (5) TMI 935 - SCH - Central Excise

Manufacture - marketability - Jurisdiction of special judge - Transfer of case from the Magistrate to the Special Judge - it was held in 2013 (10) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT that 'The fact that for an administrative exigency, the High Court decided to exercise its plenary administrative power does not per se lead to the conclusion that the transfer of the case from the Magistrate to the Special Judge was unlawful' - HELD THAT - The issue decided in KEC INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR 2016 (12) TMI 1317 - CESTAT MUMBAI where the demand was set aside. The duty demand set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Civil Appeal No. 9146 of 2011
2. Civil Appeal No. 6219-6220 of 2012

Civil Appeal No. 9146 of 2011:
The appeal is governed by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd, 2006 (203) ELT 3 (SC). The Court dismissed the appeal, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Civil Appeal No. 6219-6220 of 2012:
These appeals are also covered by the law established in the aforementioned Supreme Court case. The appellant's counsel referred to decisions of the Tribunal in related cases. The Court noted that the impugned judgment had already set aside the penalty and duty demand beyond the normal period. Citing the decisions, the Court set aside the duty demand and allowed the appeals, directing all consequential actions to follow. Pending applications were also disposed of in this regard.