SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(AP) 60

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyd – Appellant
Versus
Agrasen Syntex Private Ltd. , Hyderabad – Respondent


P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) IN these applications under Section 35-G (3) of the Central Excise Act, the Revenue seeks reference of the following question of law framed by the learned Standing Counsel. Whether the penalty provisions of the central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable to the administration of Central Excise duty under the Additional Duties of excise (Goods of Special Importance) act, 1957 or not?

( 2 ) THE Tribunal declined to refer the question to the High Court. The Tribunal followed the Division Bench decision of the delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills private Limited v. Union of India, 1995 (80) elt 507, and held that in the absence of a specific provision for levy and collection of penalty under the provisions of Additional duties of Excise (HGoods of Special importance) Act, 1957, the penalty provisions contained in the Central Excise Act cannot be read into the provisions of the former act. The view taken by the Delhi High court is fully supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Khemka and Company v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC 1549, wherein the Supreme Court held that despite Section 9 (2) of the Central Sales tax Act, in the absence of a specif


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top