You may also like...
-
![Meta AI: The Madras High Court has upheld the CESTAT’s rejection of a limitation plea raised by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd (MEPP) under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant, engaged in fabrication, was issued a Show Cause Notice in 2000 for allegedly floating shadow units to evade excise duty. The court noted that the limitation plea was raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting facts. Since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, and necessary factual material was lacking, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea. The court concluded that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked, and the appeal was dismissed [1]. Key points: – MEPP allegedly floated shadow units to evade excise duty (1995-96) – Limitation plea raised for the first time before CESTAT without facts – Madras HC upheld CESTAT’s rejection of the plea – Appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs https://www.sekarreporter.com/meta-ai-the-madras-high-court-has-upheld-the-cestats-rejection-of-a-limitation-plea-raised-by-modern-engineering-plastics-pvt-ltd-mepp-under-section-11a-of-the-central-excise-act-the-appellant/](https://www.sekarreporter.com/wp-content/themes/hueman/assets/front/img/thumb-medium-empty.png)
Meta AI: The Madras High Court has upheld the CESTAT’s rejection of a limitation plea raised by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd (MEPP) under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant, engaged in fabrication, was issued a Show Cause Notice in 2000 for allegedly floating shadow units to evade excise duty. The court noted that the limitation plea was raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting facts. Since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, and necessary factual material was lacking, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea. The court concluded that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked, and the appeal was dismissed [1]. Key points: – MEPP allegedly floated shadow units to evade excise duty (1995-96) – Limitation plea raised for the first time before CESTAT without facts – Madras HC upheld CESTAT’s rejection of the plea – Appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs https://www.sekarreporter.com/meta-ai-the-madras-high-court-has-upheld-the-cestats-rejection-of-a-limitation-plea-raised-by-modern-engineering-plastics-pvt-ltd-mepp-under-section-11a-of-the-central-excise-act-the-appellant/
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 14, 2026
-
-
Smsj full order THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM C.M.S.A.No.27 of 2020 -++-The only question of law raised in the present second appeal is that whether the complaint/application filed by the respondent before the Regulatory Authority is maintainable or not. In view of the fact that the completion certificate issued by the Executive Officer, Town Panchayat is not in consonance either with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act as well as the building plan approval sanctioned by the Director of Town and Country Planning or in accordance with the provision of the RERA Act, the same cannot be construed as a valid certificate for the purpose of grant of exclusion under Section 3(2)(b) of the RERA Act. The certificate is to be construed as insignificant and irrelevant as far as the RERA Act is concerned and for all purposes, the building is to be treated as on-going project. Therefore, the appellants/builders are bound to comply with the terms and conditions in the project as well as comply with the provisions of various laws governing real estate affairs. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in arriving a conclusion that the application/complaint filed by the respondents/apartment owners association is maintainable under the provisions of the RERA Act, 2016 and accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal stands confirmed and consequently, Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. The Regulatory Authority is directed to entertain the application/complaint filed by the respondents/apartment owners association and adjudicate the issues on merits and in accordance with law by affording opportunity to all the parties concerned and accordingly, pass speaking final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 25, 2021