18. Similarly in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I

10 SCC 337Reported decision2007#18548 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing 18. Similarly in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I

Lipi Boilers Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

C.A. No.-000856-000857 - 2011Supreme Court10 Nov 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Section 11A(1)Section 35L(1)(b)

…elled against the assessee in the present matter before us is of wilful suppression with an intention to evade central excise duty. Therefore, the following observation of this Court in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. CCE reported in (2007) 10 SCC 337 is required to be referred to: “12. The expression 'suppression' has been used in the proviso to Section 11-A of the Act accompanied by very strong words as 'fraud' or 'collusion' and, therefore, has to be construed strictly. Mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless Civil Appeal Nos. 856-857 of 2011 P…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 3 vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd

ITA/544/2016HC Delhi21 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…contempt proceedings, unlike the trial for a criminal offence, no oral evidence is ordinarily recorded and the usual practice is to give evidence by affidavits……” ……………… 36. In any event, the Apex Court in Leila David v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 337 has held, “Although, Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the procedure to be followed in cases of criminal contempt in the face of the Court, it does not preclude the court from taking recourse to summary proceedings when a deliberate and willful contumacious incident takes place in front of their eyes and the public a…

M/S. Escorts Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Faridabad

The appeal is allowed accordingly

C.A. No.-006561-006561 - 2004Supreme Court29 Apr 2015

…would not attract the penal provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. If the facts are otherwise, then the position would be different.” 18. Similarly in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I, (2007) 10 SCC 337, this Court held: “14. As far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as misstatement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word “wilful”, preceding the words “misstatement or suppression of facts” which means with intent t…

M/S. Escorts Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Faridabad

The appeal is allowed accordingly

C.A. No.-006561-006561 - 2004Supreme Court29 Apr 2015

…would not attract the penal provisions of Section 11-A of the Act. If the facts are otherwise, then the position would be different.” 18. Similarly in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I, (2007) 10 SCC 337, this Court held: “14. As far as fraud and collusion are concerned, it is evident that the intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as misstatement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word “wilful”, preceding the words “misstatement or suppression of facts” which means with intent t…

18. Similarly in Continental Foundation Joint Venture Holding v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh- I (10 SCC 337) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax