Cestat Delhi order

[Amresh kumar]

Sir/ madam,

Unable to find the CESTAT Delhi order in appeal no 5236 of 1992 = 2001 (3) TMI 153 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI.

Pl help

[KASTURI SETHI]

Write name of the party and also your email I'd. I shall email you.

[Amresh kumar]

Sir,

The name of the party is G.T.C. industries.The order is by CESTAT Delhi.

My mail I'd is- [email protected]

Regards

Amresh kumar

[KASTURI SETHI]

I want date of decision or year. Issue in brief.

[Amresh kumar]

The date of decision is 27/10/2010.

Issue is regarding joint liability.

[KASTURI SETHI]

CESTAT's order dated 27.7.10 = 2010 (10) TMI 645 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI in respect of GTC Industries Ltd. is about undervaluation and MRP. That order stands confirmed by Supreme Court on 27.8.12 = 2012 (11) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT. Either date of order of CESTAT is wrong or OIA no.5236 is wrong. Pl. clarify.

[Amresh kumar]

Sir,

It is CESTAT's order dated 27.10.10 = 2010 (10) TMI 645 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI in respect of GTC Industries Ltd. is about undervaluation and MRP.

It is Excise appeal no 5236 of 92 = 2001 (3) TMI 153 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI and CESTAT order no is 751-754/2010 dated 28.10.10 where GTC was exenorated from joint liability and only penalty was levied.

Yes, that order stands confirmed by Supreme Court in civil appeal no 1466, 1468 and 1469 of 2011 vide order dated 27.08.2012 = 2012 (11) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT

[KASTURI SETHI]

Dear Amresh Ji,

2011(264) E.L.T. 433 (Tri. - Del.) = 2010 (10) TMI 645 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

2012 (286) E.L.T. 340 (S.C.) = 2012 (11) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

AI Summary

Joint liability confined: exoneration of co-party upheld with only penalty imposed, liability limited accordingly. CESTAT Delhi order dated 27-28 October 2010 (nos. 751-754/2010) in G.T.C. Industries Ltd. addressed undervaluation and MRP, exonerated the company from joint liability and imposed only a penalty; that tribunal decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 27 August 2012 (reported 2012 (11) TMI 886).