Gujarat High Court High Court

Commissioner vs Heard on 16 December, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Commissioner vs Heard on 16 December, 2010
Author: K.A.Puj,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/474/2005	 1/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 474 of
2005 
 
=========================================================

 

COMMISSIONER
OF C.EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT-I - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

VIDHATA
SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RJ OZA for
Appellant 
RULE SERVED for
Opponent 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 27/10/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

The
appellant-revenue has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 35-G of
the Central Excise Act, 1944 proposing to formulate the following
substantial question of law for determination and consideration of
this Court.

Whether
the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in Law by reducing amount of
mandatory penalty as provided under rule 96 ZQ(II)(5) of Central
Excise Rules, 1944.

Heard,
Mr. R.J. Oza, learned senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant-revenue. Despite service of notice nobody appears on
behalf of the respondent.

Having
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s.
Dharmandra Textile Processors, the matter requires to be
considered by the Tribunal afresh. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter to the
Tribunal for passing fresh order, in accordance with law.

The
Tribunal shall pass fresh order, preferably within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. This
Tax Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(K.A.

PUJ, J.)

(HARSHA
DEVANI, J.)

Pankaj

   

Top