TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court examines duty demand limitation period appeal under Central Excise Act, 1944. Appeal dismissed after withdrawal application granted.</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The High Court addressed an appeal under Sections 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a CESTAT order remanding the matter for re-quantification ... Permission for withdrawal of application - imposition of personal penalty on petitioner-Sh.Rajender Monga, authorised signatory of M/s Parle Biscuits Pvt.Ltd. - HELD THAT:- The counsel has written instructions from the office of Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Rohtak vide letter dated 16.9.2019(P-1) to withdraw the present appeal as the duty involved in this appeal is ₹ 79, 26, 630/-. The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the petitioner. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Issues:- Appeal under Sections 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of CESTAT remanding the matter for re-quantification of duty demand and setting aside the penalty.- Determination of substantial question of law regarding the recovery of duty demand within the normal limitation period.- Application filed seeking to withdraw the appeal based on revised monetary limits for filing appeals.Analysis:The High Court dealt with an appeal filed by the Revenue under Sections 35 G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order of CESTAT. The CESTAT order had remanded the matter back to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-quantification of duty demand within the normal limitation period and had set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent company and an individual. The appeal was admitted for determining a substantial question of law related to the recovery of duty demand within the normal limitation period, despite the demand being held correct on merits. The Court considered whether the recovery could only be made for the normal limitation period, especially when the party had not disclosed details for correct assessment despite an undertaking. The Court thoroughly examined the facts and circumstances of the case to address this legal issue.Furthermore, an application was filed seeking to withdraw the appeal. The application cited instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which revised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the Court. The new limit was set at Rs. One Crore, applicable to pending cases as well. The counsel had received instructions from the office of the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax to withdraw the appeal since the duty involved was Rs. 79,26,630. The application was supported by an affidavit from the counsel. Considering the revised monetary limits and the instructions received, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the appeal and subsequently dismissed CEA No.17/2012 as withdrawn based on the prayer made in the application and supported by the affidavit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
