IMPORTANT & RECENT EXCISE CASES

Central Excise - Godrej Industries Ltd. Vs. D.G. Ahire Assistant Collector Of Central Excise & Another = 2008

Date of Decision: July 9, 2008 - SUPREME COURT Liquid hair dyes – classification - there was no specific entry relating to "hair dyes" under CET however, "hair lotion" is specified under Tariff Item 14F - Demand under Tariff Item 14F of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 – said product could not be treated as a lotion to be used as a scalp or hair nourisher or for medicinal purposes - appellant's preparation was poisonous and had to be used with great care – demand according to Tariff Item 14F was erroneous

Central Excise - OMEGA CABLES LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHENNAI-II = 2008

Date of Decision: January 31, 2006 - HIGH COURT MADRASThere is an order of Tribunal, fixing the liability on the petitioner to pay the duty and when there is admittedly no stay against that order is passed, the first respondent (Revenue) is entitled to make a demand for payment of the duty - Such a demand is perfectly legal and the first respondent cannot be restrained from making the demand - The petitioner has not made out a case for issuing the writ

Central Excise - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA Versus VALLABH STEEL LTD. = 2008

Date of Decision: August 7, 2006 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Commissioner while accepting the abatement claim of the assessee recovery of demand & penalty was ordered – Tribunal quashed the demand & penalty - contention raised by Revenue that the Tribunal could not go into the issue which was not subject matter of the order appealed against, is totally misconceived & liable to be rejected - CBEC should look into the matter with regard to filing of appeals in the matters involving petty amount, as in the present case
Central Excise - RAYALASEEMA PAPER MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-II = 2008

Date of Decision: December 7, 2005 - CESTAT, BANGALOREAction of the department of issuing SCN to initiate proceedings of penal provisions after the adjudication, is not sustainable in the eye of law - issue is also decided in a similar matter by the Calcutta (sic) imposition of penalty, once decided as held by the Calcutta High Court - Commissioner was bound by the said judgment yet he has not followed the same, which is not correct – SCN can’t be held legal hence penalty are not imposable

IF YOU NEED MORE SUMMARIES OF CENTRAL EXCISE CASES, MAIL TO ME AT casatbirgill@gmail.com

WITH REGARDS

SATBIR SINGH

PRESIDENT

JAB WE MET CA

REDEFINING PROFESSIONALISM.......