2011 (2) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been committed under Section 9(1)(b)(c)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (earlier known as Central Excises and Salt Act). 2. The Director General, Investigation vide order no. 01 of 1986 held that assessable value of cigarettes have to be determined in accordance with Rule 5 of the Central Excise Act and thereafter raised a demand of Rs. 1,12,76,000/- M/s. Indian Tobacco Company Limited then on 25-7-1986 paid the said amount. Thereafter, several attempts were raised which kept mounting up and were finally held to be Rs. 9,41,86,883.29/-. Out of the entire Rs. 9 crores and odd, Rs. 1,12,76,000/- was shown to be paid by the company and the rest was shown to be due. The petitioner challenged the demand raised on behalf of Central Ex....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e price of the cigarettes for the relevant period and recovery of the differential duty is concerned, that exercise has already been done and the differential amount has already been paid by M/s. I.T.C. as stands recorded at ....para 4 (supra)." 3. The chart of the cases pending before this Court which refers to the complaint case, the period for which the demand was raised, the amount of demand and the date of cognizance is given in the chart below. Case No. Complaint case no. Period Amount Date of cognizance Cr. Misc. No. 11282/2005 151 (C)/95 1-10-75 to 31-12-75 49,818 5-7-95 Cr. Misc. No. 56343/2006 152(C)/1995 1976 24,72,378 5-7-95 Cr. Misc. No. 13705/2007 153(C)/1995 1977 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner. 5. While the proceedings before the Supreme Court was pending, the Department had filed Criminal case against the Company and its then Directors, alleging that they had tried to evade the payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 8.29 crores. I may state here that criminal case were also lodged at Kanpur and Bangalore. It is submitted that as far as matters pending in Kanpur are concerned, they have been dropped against the Officials of the Company, similarly, the matter pending in Bangalore Court has also been quashed by the High Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that if a demand is raised, the person against whom it is raised, has a right to justify the payment of excise duty before the....