The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s.Swastic Oil Products Mfg.Co
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Appeal stands disposed of in terms of this
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)
Judgment
The learned counsel for Revenue brought to our notice the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Dharmendra Textile Processors, reported in 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) followed by another judgment of the Apex Court in case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, reported in 2009 (238) ELT 3 (SC), which are followed by the Division Bench of this Court in case of The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. M/s.Shri Ram Aluminium Pvt. Ltd. in Central Excise Appeal No.199/2006 decided on 30th June, 2009 (unreported) wherein the identical question fell for consideration wherein it has been held that under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 it is not mandatory to prove mens-rea as essential ingredient for levying penalty.
The issue raised in the present appeal, in the above circumstances, is covered by the aforesaid three judgments. For the reasons recorded therein, appeal is liable to be allowed. In the result, impugned order is quashed and set aside. The questions framed are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Respondents.
Operative part
Appeal stands disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal stands disposed of in terms of this
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
AC of Central Excise Act, 1944; AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Feb 2010. The bench was V C DAGA, K K TATED.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.