Back
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BOMBAY
R. Jayaraman, P.K. DESAI, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise -Appellant
Versus
Memory Steel (P.) Ltd. -Respondent
Order No. 196/WRB/1990 Appeal No. E/43/89-BOM, 196 of 1990, E/43 of 1989
Decided On : 07-02-1990
P.K. Desai, Member (J)
1. This appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal bearing No. V-2(72)2090/88, dated 27-10-1988 passed by the Collector of C. Excise (Appeals) setting aside the order in Original No. SRT-III/D-89/88, dated 7-6-1988. The department has come in appeal.
2. Heard Shri Mondal and Shri Willingdon Christian. Shri Mondal during the course of argument challenged the order of the Collector of Cen. Excise (Appeals) and submitted that the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) is not proper and that the order passed by the Asstt. Collector should be restored.
3. Considering the position, it appears that the demand raised is on account of wrong availment of modvat credit on Bazar Scrap of Iron and Steel. The credit was taken during the period from April, 1986 to September, 1986, for which a show cause notice demanding the duty amount was issued on 8-6-1987 by the Supdt. invoking the provisions of Rule 57-I. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Collector who passed the order dated 7-6-1988 confirming the demand.
4. This Bench has been taking a consistent view that even for demanding reversal of the credit already taken under Rule 57-I, the provisions of Section 11A would stand attracted and the demand has to be raised within the period of six months. Here that has not been done. The show cause notice issued has not spelt out any suppression or any mis-representation. The notice was issued by the Supdt. and the adjudication was made by the Asstt. Collector confirming the demand beyond six months. Considering on these grounds, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the department. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
