COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA Vs. ASCU LIMITED CALCUTTA
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-21
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 04,2002
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA
Appellant
VERSUS
ASCU LTD., CALCUTTA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
T.S.BALARAM,ITO V. VOLKART BROS. [REFERRED TO]COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA VS. PRADYUMNA STEEL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CNTL LUDHIANA VS. HERO CYCLES PRIVATE LIMITED LUDHIANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
KHIVRAJ MOTORS LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-585] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UDAIPUR VS. HISTORIC RESORT HOTELS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI VS. BHARAT BIJLEE LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2006-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIT LAL JINDAL AND SONS (HUF) VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER [LAWS(P&H)-2009-9-102] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. INDBANK MERCHANT BANKING SERVICES LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-9-215] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. CESTAT [LAWS(MAD)-2013-6-317] [REFERRED TO]
BLUE PRECISION LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-IV, FARIDABAD [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
ONIDA SAKA LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI [LAWS(CE)-2012-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
SIKKIM MANIPAL UNIVERSITY VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2014-12-93] [REFERRED TO]
MAHALAKSHMI CABLE INDUSTRIES VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2010-8-62] [REFERRED TO]
CADCHEM LABORATORIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2014-4-115] [REFERRED TO]
ADVANCE PETROCHEMICAL CO. VS. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY [LAWS(CE)-2012-5-161] [REFERRED TO]
MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-CT, NANDAMBAKKAM ASSESSMENT CIRCLE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-12-246] [REFERRED TO]
MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(SC)-2009-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MAMBA VS. OSWAL PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-155] [REFERRED]
ALEX C. JOSEPH VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [LAWS(CE)-2005-2-136] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIPS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., VADODARA [LAWS(CE)-2009-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMUNDI DIE CAST (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE [LAWS(CE)-2004-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MANGALORE VS. V.M. TOURIST HOME [LAWS(CE)-2007-5-102] [REFERRED TO]
MIHIJAM VANASPATI VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RANCHI [LAWS(CE)-2008-7-165] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPENDRA STEELS (P) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-3-200] [REFERRED TO]
CCE VS. PATWARI UDYOG LTD. AND BALMUKUND [LAWS(CE)-2003-12-301] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY BANGALORE FREIGHT CARRIER VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-173] [REFERRED TO]
CHINTTAPURNI ENGINEERING VS. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. [LAWS(CE)-2003-10-348] [REFERRED TO]
NATH SOOT GOLA FACTORY VS. CCE [LAWS(CE)-2003-9-404] [REFERRED TO]
SESHASAYEE PAPER AND PAPER BOARDS VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2004-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
CONTINENTAL CHEMICALS INDIA LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2003-5-287] [REFERRED TO]
HANDUM INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2010-2-126] [REFERRED TO]
CCE VS. SADASHIV METALLICS LTD. [LAWS(CE)-2006-7-287] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA VS. STEELCO GUJARAT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2003-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
ASCU ARCH TIMBER PROTECTION LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA [LAWS(SC)-2004-4-153] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. RDC CONCRETE INDIA P LTD [LAWS(SC)-2011-8-72] [REFERRED TO]
KESHARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR, SAHSON ALLAHABAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2012-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is against the order dated 19-4-1999.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be made liable to pay duty and penalty for not having disclosed that they were manufacturing densified wood. The Commissioner, after hearing the respondents, held that the respondents were not manufacturing densified wood and that therefore they were not liable to pay duty.
(3.)The Department filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). By an order dated 24-7-1998 it was held that the respondents were manufacturing densified wood. It was further held that the respondents had not suppressed any material or misstated any fact and that therefore the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. The matter was then remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty payable for the period of six months which was available to the Department. In passing the order dated 24-7-1998, CEGAT relied upon reports of the Alipore Test House, the Central Revenue Control laboratory and commercial literature of the respondents.
(2.)Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: the respondents were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be made liable to pay duty and penalty for not having disclosed that they were manufacturing densified wood. The Commissioner, after hearing the respondents, held that the respondents were not manufacturing densified wood and that therefore they were not liable to pay duty.
(3.)The Department filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). By an order dated 24-7-1998 it was held that the respondents were manufacturing densified wood. It was further held that the respondents had not suppressed any material or misstated any fact and that therefore the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. The matter was then remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty payable for the period of six months which was available to the Department. In passing the order dated 24-7-1998, CEGAT relied upon reports of the Alipore Test House, the Central Revenue Control laboratory and commercial literature of the respondents.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.