COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. DABUR (INDIA) LTD

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-001112-001112 - 2003Supreme Court01 April 20051 pages
For Respondent: RAJESH KUMAR
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court agreed with the CEGAT's decision, citing a previous ruling that approved classification lists preclude the use of the extended period of limitation by the Department.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed a CEGAT judgment concerning the availability of the extended period of limitation. The CEGAT had held that the extended period was not available to the Department because the assessee's classification lists were duly approved.

What were the issues?

Whether the extended period of limitation is available to the Department when the assessee's classification lists have been duly approved.

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 1 CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1112 of 2003 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur RESPONDENT: M/s Dabur (India) Limited DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005 BENCH: S. N. Variava,Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & S. H. Kapadia

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Eastern Bench, Kolkata dated 26th June, 2002. This Appeal is only against that portion of the Judgment where the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department as classification lists filed by the assessee were duly approved from time to time.

This Court in the case of O.K. Play (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi- III, (Gurgaon) reported in 2005 (66) RLT 657 (SC) held that in cases where classification list filed by the assessees have been duly approved then the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Department. We are in agreement with this view. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the impugned Judgment. We see no reason to interfere.

The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →