COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL

C.A. No.-001878-001880 - 2004Supreme Court03 October 200515 pages
For Petitioner: B. KRISHNA PRASAD
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that strict compliance with Chapter X procedures of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, is essential for availing exemptions under the notification, especially when input relief is claimed on the basis of captive consumption. Previous judgments that allowed exemptions without strict procedural adherence were distinguished.

What were the facts?

The assessee manufactured 'kimam' (an additive mixture) in Delhi and stock transferred it to their units in UP and HP for manufacturing branded chewing tobacco. The Delhi units were unregistered and unlicensed, and the existence of these units was not disclosed to the department. The assessee claimed input relief under a notification, arguing substantial compliance with procedures.

What were the issues?

Whether the benefit of an exemption notification can be granted when the assessee has not strictly followed the prescribed procedural requirements, particularly Chapter X procedures, for claiming input relief on captively consumed goods.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5A,Section 173G,Section 174,Section 192

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1878-1880 of 2004 PETITIONER: The Commissioner of Central Excise,New Delhi RESPONDENT: M/s Hari Chand Shri Gopal etc. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2005 BENCH: S.N. VARIAVA,Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J.

The short question of law involved in this matter is \026 whether irrespective of the assessees having not followed or substantially followed Chapter X procedure under the Central Excise Rules, 1944, they would still be entitled to the benefit of notification no.121/94-CE dated 11.8.1994 as held in the case of Thermax Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (61) ELT 352, which is to the effect that, the benefit of concession should be given when intended use of material can be established by other evidence.

This case is a sequel to the case of the assessees in civil appeal nos.5747-5749 of 2000 decided by this court on 30.9.2005 and, therefore, we are not required to restate the facts. Suffice it to state that the assessee-firms were manufacturer of branded chewing tobacco (final product) from "additive

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 5A

All 57 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →