CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2009 › Commr.of Central Excise,haldia v. M/S Exide Industries Ltd.

Commr.of Central Excise,haldia v. M/S Exide Industries Ltd.

Supreme Court of India · 16 January 2009

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
16 January 2009
Case no.
C.A. No. 4977 of 2008
Bench
S.H. Kapadia, Aftab Alam
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4977 OF 2008

Commr. of Central Excise, Haldia
...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.
...Respondent(s)

ORDER

This Civil Appeal concerns quantification of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors., reported in 2008 (13) SCALE 233.

At this stage, learned counsel for the assessee states that he is challenging the very levy of penalty on the facts and circumstances of the case. He seeks time to put in counter. His application is rejected for the simple reason that in this Civil Appeal, we are concerned with the quantum of penalty and not with the levy of penalty. As regards levy of penalty, the Tribunal has rejected the contention of the assessee that penalty is not leviable. However, that decision of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the

...2/- assessee. Hence, our order allowing this Civil Appeal will not come in the way of the assessee challenging the order of the Tribunal on the question of imposition of penalty. However, we express no opinion on the merits of that case.

Subject to above, Civil Appeal is allowed.

...................J. (S.H. KAPADIA) ...................J. (AFTAB ALAM) New Delhi, January 16, 2009.

Ask CaseMinister about Commr.of Central Excise,haldia v. M/S Exide Industries Ltd.

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp