In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s M/s. Sunrise Zinc Ltd. it has been held by Goa High Court held that where non-payment of duty is not with an intent to evade of payment then there can be no occasion to impose penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. it was held that Rule 9 is a procedural aspect which cannot deny the claim of the respondents to avail of such CENVAT Credit which they are, otherwise, admittedly, entitled to and hence CENVAT credit is allowed on the basis of TR-6 challan.
In the case of CCE V/s M/s. Seagull Threads (India) Ltd., it has been held by Goa High Court that it is not permissible in law to consider the issue afresh in a proceeding which has already been settled by the same authority by its earlier order and had attained finality for want of any appeal against the original/earlier order, as no party to the litigation has challenged in any appellate forum.
In the case CCE V/s Nazareth Alloys (High Court of Bombay at Goa), it has been held that by following the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Dharmendra Textile Processors’ in case provisions of law provides for mandatory penalty, then revenue need not establish mens rea.
The Hon’ble High Court found that the Tribunal in reaching the conclusion that the Appellant has not made out any prima facie case extensively dealt with the arguments as if it is called upon to decide the Appeal finally.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that judicial Tribunals and Courts of law have to follow the rule of consistency and certainty so also finality of judgments. There is a definite purpose being served because of all this and namely parties before the Court of law
The assessee is engaged in manufacture of plastic articles/components and parts by using injection moulding machines. In the present matter the moulds, used to manufacture, in this case cabinets for television sets the finished product
The Hon’ble Court is of the view that the present appeal does not involve an issue regarding the rate of duty in as much as even the assessee does not dispute the rate of duty i.e. payable for the services rendered.
High Court of Bombay at Goa held in the case of CIT vs. V. S. Dempo & Company Ltd. Held that view taken by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner has to be on the basis of the law prevailing on the day the view was taken.
In the case of The Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd vs. ACIT High Court of Bombay at Goa held that All three conditions of 5(1)(ccv) are to be satisfied cumulatively by a society for being termed as co-operative bank.
