Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIO versus M/S S.V.N.INDUSTRIES

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Central Excise Commissio v. M/S S.V.N.Industries - CEA-57-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 8434 (12 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.E.A.No. 57 of 2004

Date of decision:23.10.2006

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jalandhar ...Appellant

Versus

M/S S.V.N.Industries

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr.Anil Sharma, Central Government Counsel for the appellant.

****

JUDGMENT

The assessee was claiming SSI exemption under the relevant notifications issued under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. The same was disallowed on the ground that assessee was using the brand name of other concern on account of which claim for exemption was not justified. The goods were directed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs.35,000/-. In addition to this, a penalty of Rs.38579/- was also imposed.

On appeal, seizure of semi finished goods was vacated and redemption fine in respect of finished goods was reduced. The amount of penalty was also reduced to Rs.5000/- with the observation that question of interpretation of notification being involved, it could not be held that assessee had intention to evade excise duty. This view was upheld by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that since the assessee was using brand name of other concern, intention to evade excise duty is patent.

***

Since Appeal to this Court is maintainable only on a substantial question of law, we are unable to hold that the view taken by the Appellate Authority and the Tribunal on facts of the case is perverse. Even if other view is possible, this Court will not substitute its opinion on the issue in the appellate jurisdiction requiring entertainment & adjudication of appeals involving substantial questions of law. Amount involved is about Rs.34,000/-. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal arises.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Adarsh Kumar Goel)

Judge

October 23,2006 (Rajesh Bindal)

Pka Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.