The hon’ble High Court of Bombay and Goa held in the case of Betts India Pvt. Ltd. V/s DCIT that when all the material facts necessary for assessment has been truly and full disclosed, the assessment can not be re opened after the expiry of time limit
Raymond Limited V/s. CCEC (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument that between 1st March, 2002 to 9th September, 2004 the credit of AED(T&TA) can be used for payment of any of the specified duty referred to in SubRule (1) of Rule 3.
CEAT Limited V/s CCE&C( Bombay High Court)- If the liability to pay interest between the time or the period of provisional assessment and payment of differential duty until the final assessment has to be read in the Rule, that is not possible.
In the case of CCE V/s Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. it was held by Goa High Court held that the any expenditure incurred in the manufacturing activity would be entitled for credit facility and hence the expenses of mobile phones incurred in connection with manufacturing process shall be allowed.
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
