Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A(1) Depressing of sale price- Show cause notice, that assessee had short paid the duty on its products, that is, printed glass
bottles, by under-valuing the same at the time of clearance from its factory inasmuch as it did not add additional consideration received from C and P whereinassessee had received 90% advance from C and 100% advance from P for the goods and it was giving
3-4% discount to the said Companies - Ssale price agreed between two competing parties may get depressed, when substantial and huge advances are periodically extended and given with the
objective and purpose that the sale price paid or charged would be lowered, to set off the consideration paid by grant of advances - There should be a connect and link between the two i.e.
the money advanced it should be established was a consideration paid which could form the basis for depression of sale price - Evidence and material to establish the said factual matrix has
to be uncovered and brought on record to connect and link the sale price paid on paper and the other consideration, not gratis, but by way of interest free advancesMatter remanded to decide what is the effect of the sales made to the two companies in percentile
terms, whether this had the effect of depressing the sale price -Onus on the revenue.(2016)3 P.L.R.SC 101
Central Excise Act, 1944 Section 35-F - Customs, Excise and Service
Tax Appellate Tribunal directing petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 40.00 lacs as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal - Petitioner granted time to deposit Rs. 25.00 lacs. (176)
Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 230(1) - In default of payment of
loans to the Punjab Financial Corporation and the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation - The plant and machinery were possessed, under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation
Act, 1951, and auctioned - Auction purchaser of land and building - Clause in the agreement requires the petitioner to discharge statutory liabilities arising out of land and building - The
petitioner, therefore, cannot be called upon to discharge liability of the original owner under the Central Excise and Sale Act, 1944 - State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (63 of 1951) S.
29. (174) P.L.R.
Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 57.Q - Petitioner
purchased tray casting as capital goods - Denial of mode of credit - Once it is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the modvat credit on the eligible capital
goods, namely, tray casting in the present case, as was clarified - Even if the petitioner had failed to refer to the circular at the time of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal, in
fact, it was the duty of the department itself to have taken care of the circular and not indulge any party in unnecessary litigation, as even the facts suggest that very initiation of the
proceedings against the petitioner to deny the benefit of modvat credit was after the circular had already been credited.(183) P.L.R.
Central Excise Rules, 2002 - In the absence of any specific provision
in the statute, the duty/penalty liability of the company cannot be recovered from the assets of its director - The Director is not personally liable towards liability of the company.(181)
Central Excise Rules, 2003, Rule 8(3A) - Rule 8(3A) of the 2002 Rules
to the extent it contains the words `without utilizing the CENVAT Credit' is held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and is struck down - In other words, the unamended Rule 8(3A) of 2002 Rules
whereby the benefit of CENVAT Credit for all the period till the actual payment was made, stands disallowed in the event of a minor default also is arbitrary and unreasonable. Held, that Rule
8(3A) of the 2002 Rules to the extent it contains the words `without utilizing the CENVAT Credit' is held to be arbitrary and unreasonable and is struck down. In other words, the unamended
Rule 8(3A) of 2002 Rules whereby the benefit of CENVAT Credit for all the period till the actual payment was made, stands disallowed in the event of a minor default also is arbitrary and
unreasonable. It may further be noticed that the respondents had themselves realized the unreasonableness of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of 2002 Rules and had withdrawn the words `without
utilizing the benefit of CENVAT Credit' and had amended the same w.e.f 11.7.2014 by incorporation that now a penalty shall be imposed at the rate of 1% of the defaulted amount for each month
or part thereof calculated from the due date. (183) P.L.R.
Central Excise Rules 1944, Rule 96ZO(3)(ii) - Rules 96ZO(3), 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Rules
held the said provisions to the extent of providing for mandatory minimum penalty without mens rea and without any element of discretion as excessive and unreasonable restriction on
fundamental rights being arbitrary and were accordingly declared to be ultra vires the Act and the Constitution - Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - First Schedule - Constitution of India,
Article 14. (176) P.L.R.