I.A. No. 2 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 2011 with I.A. Nos. 3-4 of 2012 in C.A. Nos. 1468-1469 of 2011. Case: GTC Industries Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. Supreme Court

Case Number:I.A. No. 2 of 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 1466 of 2011 with I.A. Nos. 3-4 of 2012 in C.A. Nos. 1468-1469 of 2011
Party Name:GTC Industries Ltd. Vs Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi
Judges:T.S. Thakur and Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ.
Issue:Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 35L
Citation:2012 (286) ELT 340 (SC)
Judgement Date:August 27, 2012
Court:Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

  1. By our order dated 25-4-2011, we had directed issue of notice to the respondents subject to payment of the entire amount determined by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [CESTAT] within a period of three months from the date of the said order [2011 (264) ELT 433 (Tri.-Del.)]. The appellant company, we are told has deposited the amount of penalty levied against it but the principal amount of Rs. 3.85 crores has not been paid. Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG, appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that in terms of our order mentioned above, these appeals should stand be deemed to have been dismissed without any further reference to the court.

  2. Counsel appearing for the appellant company, however, disputed this position and contended that the CESTAT has not determined the liability towards excise duty against the appellant. All that was levied against the appellant was a penalty of Rs. 2.74 lakhs, which the appellant has already deposited.

  3. A reading of para 34.7 of the order passed by the CESTAT would show that the CESTAT has relying upon the decision of this Court in New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, 1995 (1) SCC 478, found that GTC had gained at the cost of Revenue who was controlling KCPL and JKCL from the stage of manufacture till marketing of the goods. The CESTAT has further held that the appellant alone had gained at the cost of Revenue as it was controlling the MRP and had realised sale proceeds over and above the said price. Para 34.7 of the CESTAT Order reads as under:-

    Shri Parasaran also relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of New Horizons Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, 1995 (1) SCC 478 to argue that the Courts can always see...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL