Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether liability for central excise dues for different assessment periods could be fastened on the appellant after surrender of the earlier licence and grant of a fresh licence to another unit, and whether such liability required a separate show cause notice and factual enquiry.
Analysis: The period from 1-4-1998 to 31-3-1999 was treated as one for which the appellant remained answerable to a show cause notice to be issued separately. For the subsequent period from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2000, the appellant had surrendered the previous licence and a fresh licence had been granted to another textile unit; therefore, any allegation for that later period had to be addressed to the fresh licensee after notice. The fastening of excise liability was held to depend on findings of fact reached after due opportunity and enquiry.
Conclusion: Liability for the later period could not be fastened on the appellant and had to be examined against the fresh licensee, while liability for the earlier period was left open for separate notice and adjudication.
Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was modified so that excise liability for the subsequent period was shifted away from the appellant, with the matter otherwise left to be determined through due process.