Tag: penalty imposition

Supreme Court: Power Used in Any Part of an Integrated Process Disqualifies Exemption from Excise Duty
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Power Used in Any Part of an Integrated Process Disqualifies Exemption from Excise Duty

The Supreme Court held that "manufacture" includes a series of integrally connected processes. For exemption eligibility, the cumulative effect of all processes—even across different units—must be considered. If any integral process uses power, the entire manufacture is deemed to be with power, disentitling the final product from exemption. Facts Of The Case: The appellant-department received intelligence that Bhagyalaxmi Processor Industry (Unit 1) and Famous Textile Packers (Unit 2) were processing cotton fabrics with power without following excise procedures. A search on 21.01.2003 revealed both units operated within the same compound and possessed industrial electricity connections with machinery like mercerizing, bleaching, squeezing, and stentering machines operated by electric...
Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds CCI’s Power: No Second Notice Needed Before Imposing Penalty

This Supreme Court judgement clarifies that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is not mandated to issue a second, separate show-cause notice specifically proposing the penalty. A single notice, which forwards the investigation report alleging contravention and invites a reply, constitutes sufficient compliance with natural justice. The legal scheme envisages a consolidated hearing on both liability and penalty, with the appellate body serving as a check against disproportionate penalties. Facts Of The Case: An information was filed with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) by M/s Crown Theatre against the Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation (KFEF) and its office-bearers. The complaint alleged that KFEF, along with its President and General Secretary, engaged in anti-compe...