TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcise Act, 1944. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question had been filed, on the basis of the assessment order, passed against the petitioners dated 18.11.1998 (Annexure P3). However, the said assessment order was set aside in appeal vide order dated 21.3.2000 (Annexure P4). In appeal preferred by the department against the said order before the Apex Court, the order in appeal was not set aside. Hence, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were liable to be quashed. In support of her argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'K.C.Builders and another versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Income Tax Reporters (Vol. 265) 562. The Apex Court has held as under:- "In our view, on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tribunal exhibited as a defence document inasmuch as the passing of the order as aforementioned is unsustainable and unquestionable." Learned counsel has also placed reliance on 'Gupta Constructions Co. and others versus Income-Tax Officer and others, 2003 (Vol. 260) Income Tax Reports 415 (P&H), wherein it was held as under:- "In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, wherein, it has been held that if the penalty proceedings have been set aside in the departmental proceedings then the very basis of launching of the prosecution against the assessee stands knocked down. In such facts, the Supreme Court had quashed the proceedings initiated under the Income-tax Act against the assessee. In view of the said judgment, I ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal New Delhi. The Tribunal vide its order dated 21.3.2000 (Annexure P4) upheld the classification claimed by the Company. The operative potion of the said order reads as under:- "Examining the case before us in the light of the above findings of this Tribunal which are reported to be confirmed by the Apex Court and reported in 1997 (95) ELT 455. The Apex Court in its order held that "We have perused the judgment of the majority. We are of the view that the judgment of the majority does not suffer from any error which may call for interference by this court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs." We note that the facts of the facts are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase vide Final Order No. 96-97/2000-D dated 21.3.2000 reported as 2001(131) ELT 434(Tri.Delhi). It has been clearly held by the Tribunal in this order that the cotton knitted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn is classifiable under sub heading 6000.92 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue's plea of classification of the same under sub heading 6002.30 has not been accepted by the Tribunal. Although, the Department has filed an appeal in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the above cited order of the Tribunal but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not granted any stay on the operation of the Tribunal's order as intimated by Asstt. Commissioner's (Law), Central Excise Hqrs., Delhi-III vide letter No.V(Law)HQ/D-III/68/2001 dated 12.5.2005. Thus....