Supreme Court of India
M/s. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
1 Supreme Court bench has cited this judgment.
What the Court ordered
We are of the view that the CEGAT was not justified in holding that the extended period of limitation would be available to the Department for initiating the recovery proceedings under section 11 A of the Act on a finding that there was suppression of facts by the appellant.
Judgment, page 16
From the headnote
Excise: Central Excise Act, 1944: c Section 11- (1) proviso (as it stood after 2000 amendment but prior to 12-5-2000)-Limitation-Extended period of limitation-Applicability of "Suppression offacts"-Assessee manufactured rubber profiles which product after extrusion was subjected to notching or drilling of a few holes or slilling Assessee classified such extruded rubber profiles under Sub-heading 4008.29 which al/racted 'Nil' rate of duty-But the Revenue sought to classify the said product under Sub-heading 4016.19 on the ground that the assessee had not disclosed the process of notching,
Authorities it was built on
Where later benches applied it
Of those, 1 referred to
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.