Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2012 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2012 (5) TMI 141 - HC - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Quashing of notices for payment of differential Central Excise duty.
2. Interpretation of Section 35K(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Quashing of notices for payment of differential Central Excise duty:
The petition sought to quash notices dated 30.11.2011 and 23.2.2012, directing the petitioner-firm to pay differential Central Excise duty for the period from 1.7.1999 to 31.3.2000. The petitioner argued that the order dated 9.10.2000, in their favor, had not been varied, and therefore, the department could not claim payment based on the subsequent decision in the reference petition. The petitioner contended that unless the Tribunal passed an order in line with the High Court's judgment in GCR No.2 of 2003 dated 26.8.2011, no recovery could be made from them. The revenue opposed the prayer, stating that the notices were issued to protect revenue interests following an adverse decision against the assessee-petitioner.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 35K(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The Court analyzed Section 35K(1) of the Act, which mandates that the Tribunal, after a decision by the High Court, must pass an order conforming to the judgment. In this case, the Tribunal had not issued any such order in accordance with the High Court's decision in GCR No.2 of 2003 dated 26.8.2011. As a result, the earlier order in favor of the petitioner remained valid. The Court emphasized that without the Tribunal passing an order in compliance with the High Court's judgment, the notices issued by respondent No.3 for payment of differential duty could not be legally upheld. Consequently, the petition was allowed, giving the revenue the opportunity to take action once the Tribunal passed an order as per Section 35K(1) of the Act.

This judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the necessity for tribunals to align their decisions with higher court judgments to enforce recovery actions lawfully.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates