9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 - Rajesh Bindal and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ. Shri Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Amit Goyal and R.K. Handa, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Rajesh Bindal, J.]. - The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 14-5-2012 passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (for short, the Commission ) in Settlement Applications No. S.A. (C) Nos. 2867/2012 2871/2012, dated 5-3-2012. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner imported polyester knitted fabric declaring its value at ₹ 12,06,944/-, however, the department found the same to be bonded and woven fabric and assessed the value thereof at ₹ 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd., 2011 (265) E.L.T. 3, it was submitted that if the order passed by the Commission is contrary to the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act ), it can be interfered with. As in the case in hand, levy of CVD was upheld by the Commission, the order to that extent is against the provisions of the Act and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the counsel for the petitioner, who appeared before the Commission, conceded for levy of CVD and it was in the light of that fact that the petitioner was granted substantial concession in levy of redemption fine and the penalty, hence, the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. However, the issue sought to be argued is that counsel for the petitioner had made a confession to that extent before the Commission. Suffice to say that immediately after the order was passed by the Commission, the petitioner had filed an application seeking modification of the order to the extent the confession was recorded. However, the same was not decided. 8. The scope of interference by the court in an order passed by the Commission is well defined. In Ind-Swift Laboratories Ltd. s case (supra), Hon ble the Supreme Court opined that any order passed by the Commission can be interfered with, if it is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act. In The Union of India and others v. Asahi India Safety Glass Ltd., 2015 (7) Scal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds such production would be a process in relation to the manufacture. Where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process manufacture or processing of goods would be impossible or commercially inexpedient, that process is one in relation to the manufacture. 12. The High Court has also relied upon two other judgments of this Court, viz, J.K. Cotton Mills v. S.T. Officer [1965 (1) SCR 900] and Standard Fireworks Industries v. Collector - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 56 (S.C.) laying down the same proposition as noted in the case of Rajasthan State Chemical Works (Supra). 13. In the process, the High Court has also interpreted Rule 57D and Rule 57A(4) of the Rules. It would be pert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
