M/S. ANAND NISHIKAWA COMPANY LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

C.A. No.-003158-003158 - 2000Supreme Court23 September 20059 pages
For Respondent: P. PARMESWARAN
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that there was no 'suppression of facts' by the appellant as the facts were known to both parties and the department had inspected the products. Therefore, the extended period of limitation under Section 11A proviso was not available.

What were the facts?

The appellant classified extruded rubber profiles under a Nil duty sub-heading, while the Revenue classified them under a different heading, alleging further working. The Revenue issued a show cause notice for extended duty demand, which was initially discharged by the Commissioner but later allowed by CEGAT on the issue of limitation.

What were the issues?

Whether the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is available to the Revenue in cases of alleged suppression of facts when the facts were known to both parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 11A

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 9 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3158 of 2000 PETITIONER: M/s. Anand Nishikawa Co.Ltd. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/09/2005 BENCH: S.N. Variava & Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T TARUN CHATTERJEE J.

Appellant M/s. Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. is a manufacturer of rubber profiles which product after extrusion is subject to notching or drilling of a few holes or slitting. The appellant had classified such extruded rubber profiles under sub- heading 4008.29 of the Central Excise Tariff which attracted Nil rate of duty. The Revenue, however, classified such rubber under heading 4016. 19. According to Revenue, the operations like notching, drilling and slitting are "further working" and in view of Note 9 to Chapter 40, these goods fall outside Heading 40. 08. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued in October, 1995 demanding duty of over Rs.2.18 crores for the period from September 1990 to February, 1994 under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’). The Commissioner by his order dated 2

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 11A

All 97 judgments and leading authorities on Section 11A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →