COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, A.P vs. SURESH JHUNJHUNWALA
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in not considering the materials on record regarding the over-valuation and the potential violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The impugned judgment was set aside.
What were the facts?
Two firms attempted to export garments under the DEPB Scheme by mis-declaring their description and over-invoicing the value. The goods were intercepted and found to be of extremely poor quality, unfit for wear.
What were the issues?
Whether the Tribunal correctly held that the goods were not prohibited and over-valuation was not established. The applicability of the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to the case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 113,Section 114,Section 2(33),Section 50,Section 12(1),Section 22,Section 23(1-A),Section 23(1-B),Section 167(8),Section 8(1),Section 19
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi4 citing6 SCC 161 · 2003
- Union of India and Others v. M/s Rai Bahadur Shreeram Durga Prasad (P) Ltd. and Others3 citing1 SCC 91 · 1969
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J: M/s Ganesh Yarntex Export Private Limited filed six shipping bills under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB Scheme) bearing Nos. 136 to 141 dated 06.01.2001. M/s Aadee Exports & Imports, Secunderabad filed five shipping bills bearing Nos. 142 to 147 dated 06.01.200. They declared their address as ’c/o ABC, II Floor, YMCA Complex, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad. All the said shipping bills were filed for post export benefit under the DEPB Scheme claiming credit rate @ 15% vide Sl. No.20(iii) of the DEPB Credit List, Product Group No.89 read with EXIM Policy. The goods were declared as "Dyed Printed Night Wears (Maxis)" in various sizes/colours. The value of the goods was claimed to be Rs.41 lakhs @ US$ 6.40 per piece. The total FOB value of the consignment was declared to be US$ 5,84,064/- (Rs.2.72 crores) approximately. The consignment was made in t
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 113
- Mahendra Singh Dharampal & Co., Udaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2, UdaipurITA 229/JODH/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
- Sab Developers Private Limited, Chandigarh vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), ChandigarhITA 1071/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12
- M/S. Gaurav Investments, Mumbai vs DCIT, CC-8(1), MumbaiITA 5184/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
- Kuber Auto General Finance & Leasing Lts (… vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), New DelhiITSSA 1/DEL/2022[BP 01.04.1987 to 08.05.1997]Status: Disposed14 May 2024
- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Abhisar Buildwell P. LtdCIVIL APPEAL No. 6580/202124 Apr 2023
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026