M/s Bentee Rubber (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4327 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12037/97)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12037/97)
Petitioner: M/s Bentee Rubber (P) Ltd.
Respondent: State of Kerala
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4327 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12037/97)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12037/97)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 28, 2000
Head Note:
EXCISE
Central Excise Act, 1944
Penalty – Imposition – Suo motu revisional jurisdiction invoked and penalty imposed – No findings recorded as to whether goods actually not sold to the party for whom goods were manufactured; from goods purchased, taking benefits of ‘C’ form. Held that jurisdiction was not properly exercised and penalty cannot be imposed. Appeal allowed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave is granted.
2. On July 22, 1997, this Court ordered limited notice in the following terms: “Issue notice limited to the question of quantum of penalty”.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the larger question, whether the imposition of penalty is justified, arises. The Deputy Commissioner invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction and imposed the penalty without recording the findings whether the goods were actually not sold by M/s Vikrant Tyres, which were manufactured by the petitioner for and on behalf of M/s Vikrant Tyres, from the goods purchased taking benefit of “C” forms. In view of this position, the revisional jurisdiction has not been exercised properly. Penalty cannot, therefore, be maintained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
1. Leave is granted.
2. On July 22, 1997, this Court ordered limited notice in the following terms: “Issue notice limited to the question of quantum of penalty”.
2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the larger question, whether the imposition of penalty is justified, arises. The Deputy Commissioner invoked suo motu revisional jurisdiction and imposed the penalty without recording the findings whether the goods were actually not sold by M/s Vikrant Tyres, which were manufactured by the petitioner for and on behalf of M/s Vikrant Tyres, from the goods purchased taking benefit of “C” forms. In view of this position, the revisional jurisdiction has not been exercised properly. Penalty cannot, therefore, be maintained. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
