15) In Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut

7 SCC 749Reported decision2005#21281 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2021.

Judgments citing 15) In Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut

Commissioner of Gst and Central Excise vs. M/S Citibank N.A

C.A. No.-008228 - 2019Supreme Court09 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Section 35L(1)(b)Section 64(3)Section 65Section 65(10)Section 65(105)Section 65(12)Section 65(7)Section 83

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8228 OF 2019 COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S CITI BANK N.A. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.89 OF 2021 J U D G M E N T K.M. JOSEPH, J. 1. These Appeals are maintained under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, read with Section 83 of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. They are directed against the Orders dated 16.11.2018 and 20.11.2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (hereinafte…

M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006060-006060 - 2003Supreme Court22 Jan 2013
Section 112Section 130Section 25Section 3Section 5A

…ect information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression.’ 3 (2005) 7 SCC 749 12 Page 13 JUDGMENT 27. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462], we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade…

M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006060-006060 - 2003Supreme Court22 Jan 2013
Section 112Section 130Section 25Section 3Section 5A

…ect information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty. Where facts are known to both the parties the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression.’ 3 (2005) 7 SCC 749 12 Page 13 JUDGMENT 27. Relying on the aforesaid observations of this Court in the case of Pushpam Pharmaceutical Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay [1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 462], we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd

C.A. No.-003860-003860 - 2006Supreme Court12 Nov 2010

Bench: Us In This Appeal Filed Under Section 130-E Of The Customs Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). 1

Section 11ASection 130

…ct, which is not wilful and yet constitute a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11-A. Mis- statement or suppression of fact must be willful.” 15) In Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, (2005) 7 SCC 749, this Court has observed: “…we find that "suppression of facts" can have only one meaning that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to evade payment of duty, when facts were known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have 1 done not that he must have done would not render it suppression. It is…

15) In Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut (7 SCC 749) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax