AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 171 wordsAdarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1.This order will dispose of CEA Nos. 40,41 and 42 of 2011 as all the three appeals involve a common question.
2.CEA No. 40 of 2011 has been preferred by the revenue u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi claiming following substantial questions of law:
Whether the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal is proper and legal?
Whether Tribunal is justified in setting aside the penalties on the ground of interpretations when the issue already stands elucidated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India.?
Learned Counsel for the revenue fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by judgment of this Court dated 11.7.2011 in Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Chandigarh v. Shanker Printing Mills. CEA No. 38 of 2011
4.cordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the each connected case.