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

TMI Blog

Home

2009 (6) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 09 to the extent that each of the appellant may furnish security which may be other than cash or bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 5 lacs which has been directed to be deposited by the Appellate Tribunal. The security can be furnished within a period of six weeks from today. - 146, 147, 148 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2009 - Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Petitioner's Counsels - M.P. Devnath and Nishat Mishra Respondent's Counsel - S.C. (Indirect Tax) Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. - These three Central Excise Appeals have been preferred under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the '' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as it was even earlier. In the present case, we find that duty on the metalized films and laminated polyester films have been duly assessed (assessed by the assessee and, for some period, by the Department also) and paid to the Central Govt.; the credit on inputs during the said period was also validly taken. In these circumstances, we are in agreement with submissions of the learned Advocate that demand under Section 11D and demand of Rs.15,58,167/- in respect of inputs gone into exports and the demand of Rs.75,80,380/- in respect of intermediate product may not be sustainable. However, the rest of the demands relates to clandestine removal which is not being disputed at the stay stage by the applicants. All the above observations are prim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... strong prima facie case. He further submitted that under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, penalty could not have been imposed on any employee/Director of M/s LIPL when there was no evidence to show that the appellants had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Benara Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2006 (204) ELT 513 (SC) and the decision of this Court in I.T.C Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) Customs Excise, Meerut-I , 2005 (184) ELT 347 (All.). Sri S.P. Kesarwani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also placed reliance .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y establishing a prima facie case, interim order of protection should not be passed. But if on a cursory glance it appears that the demand raised has no leg to stand, it would be undesirable to require the assessee to pay full or substantive part of the demand. Petitions for stay should not be disposed of in a routine matter unmindful of the consequences flowing from the order requiring the assessee to deposit full or part of the demand. There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order has to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved. Merely because this Court has indicated the principles that does not give a license to the forum/authority to pass an order which cannot be sustained on the touchstone .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In the present Appeals, what is sought to be contended is that no penalty could have been imposed upon the Directors and the Manager of M/s LIPL in the absence of any evidence on record to show that they had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation. This is an issue which is to be considered in the Appeals which are pending disposal before the Appellate Tribunal. It needs to be mentioned that in Swastik Fragrances Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) of Cus. Ex., NOIDA reported in 2004 (169) E.I.T. 257 (All.) a Division Bench of this Court observed that the interest of Revenue can be protected by directing the appellant to furnish security of the amount. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates