9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 723X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefrom. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, following order was passed on 25.05.2010:- "The learned senior counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner - Harjit Kaur had not been arrayed as an accused in the criminal complaint dated 26.04.2000 (P2) filed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division No.-1 Dandi Swami, Ludhiana. It is further submitted that the allegations against the other accused has been mentioned in para 3 of the complaint (P2) and there is no allegation of any kind against the petitioner. The petitioner has been summoned as an accused vide order dated 5.12.2005 in which it is mentioned that counsel for the complainant states that Ajit Singh and Harjit Kaur (petitioner) are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tribution of aerated water. Notice was issued the the accused by the Central Excise Department calling upon them to explain why excise duty should not be recovered from them. Commissioner, Central Excise vide order dated 01.02.1999 held as under:- i) I demand duty Rs. 71,65,816.00 (Rupees Seventy one lacs sixty five thousand and eight hundred Sixteen only) from M/s. Mohan Bottling Co.(P) Ltd, GT Road, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana under Section 11(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The amount should be paid forthwith. ii) I drop the demand of Rs.7,77,397.00 (Rupees Seven Lac Seventy seven thousand and three hundred ninety seven only) proposed in the above said show cause notices on account of the interest on the advance deposits received by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to reject the same and take recourse to Central Excise Valuation Rules and add the differential between the freight amount charged at equalised rate and actual frieght expenses to the factory gate price and, as such, even for this period also the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. vs. CCE (supra) would be applicable. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed." Thus, a perusal of the said judgment reveals that while allowing the appeal filed by M/s. Mohan Bottling Company (P) Ltd., the order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh dated 01.02.1999 was set aside. Since the order which formed basis of the complaint in qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
