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>Supreme Court rules against manufacturing company in Customs Tribunal appeal</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE Versus DB. ELECTRONICS</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's decision, ruling that the demand and penalty imposed on the ... Demand based on surmises and conjunctures - Held that:- there is no challenge to the acceptance of Respondents defence to ESI and Provident Fund returns. Thus the only other material available is the statement prepared on basis of wages paid by the Respondents. We thus find that the Tribunal is right in holding that the order of the Collector is based solely on surmises and conjunctures - Non infirmity in order - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Challenge against Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal order based on violation of principles of natural justice and demand for penalty.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against a Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) order dated 9th March, 2000. The Respondents, engaged in manufacturing UPS systems, had availed benefits under Notification No. 46/81-C.E., dated 1st March, 1981. A show cause notice was issued to them on 22nd July, 1987, alleging that they were not eligible for the benefits due to employing more than 10 persons. The Collector confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty on 16th March, 1988. However, the CEGAT allowed the Respondents' appeal on the grounds of violation of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the Collector for re-hearing. During the re-hearing, a statement based on wages paid by the Respondents was relied upon, leading to a demand and penalty being imposed. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that the demand was not sustainable as it was based on inferences and surmises.Upon examination of the case papers and hearing the Counsel, the Supreme Court found that there was no challenge to the acceptance of the Respondents' defense regarding ESI and Provident Fund returns. The only other material considered was the statement prepared based on the wages paid by the Respondents. The Court concurred with the Tribunal's view that the Collector's order was solely based on surmises and conjectures. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order. As a result, the Appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
