Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries

13 SCC 1Reported decision2008#2842 most cited

What is Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries authority for?

Circulars and instructions issued by tax boards are binding on departmental authorities, but they cannot override the law declared by the Supreme Court or High Courts; judicial pronouncements prevail over conflicting board circulars.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ratan Melting & Wire Industries · CCE v Ratan Melting · binding nature of circulars · CBDT circulars · CBEC circulars · judicial pronouncements prevail · Supreme Court decisions binding · High Court decisions binding · circulars vs court judgments · departmental instructions · tax authorities obligation · 13 SCC 1 (2008)

Sections most often in play

Section 115JBSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(2AB)Section 37(1)Section 43AASection 68

Issues it is cited on

section 256speculation losssection 43(5)section 43asummons under section 131section 35(2ab)mercantile system of accountingaddition u/s 68service of noticesection 115jbsection 43section 37(1)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries

M/S Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-000152-000152 - 2026Supreme Court09 Jan 2026

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 47

…to valuation of stock. But the ordinary principle of commercial accounting requires that in the P&L account the value of the stock-in-trade at the beginning and at the end of the year should be entered at cost or market price, whichever is the 34 (2009) 13 SCC 1 52 lower. This is how business profits arising during the year need to be computed. This is one more reason for reading Section 37(1) with Section 145. 29. For valuing the closing stock at the end of a particular year, the value prevailing on the last date is relevant. This is because profits/loss is embedded in the closing stock. While…

Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Sivaganga vs. ITO, Ward-1, Karaikudi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…ty of such instructions but so far as the Department is concerned, such right is not available." …………… 28. The Constitution Bench in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [2008] 12 STR 416/17 STT 103 (SC)/(2008) 13 SCC 1 on a reference made by three Judge Bench, addressing the conflict of difference of interpretation of a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and by this Court coupled with binding nature of the same, observed as follows - "7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respec…

Vijay Krishnaswami @ Krishnaswami Vijayakumar vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)

Crl.A. No.-003777-003779 - 2025Supreme Court28 Aug 2025

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.Ii), Egmore, Chennai, For The Offence Under Section 276C(1)2 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short “It Act”) For Assessment Year 2017- 1 High Court Of Judicature At Madras. 2 Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Etc. 1 Digitally Signed By Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.28 20:56:48 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 245Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 276C(1)Section 279(1)Section 482

…,13 on a reference made by three Judge Bench, addressing the conflict of difference of interpretation of a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, and by this Court coupled with binding nature of the same, observed as follows – 13 (2008) 13 SCC 1 25 “7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the court to direct that the circular should be given effect…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3579/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3577/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 3579/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Subros Limited, vs. Addl.CIT, Range 24, LGF, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AABCS3910P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Uma Shankar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Order : 0…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 24(2) New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3578/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3577/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 3579/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Subros Limited, vs. Addl.CIT, Range 24, LGF, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AABCS3910P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Uma Shankar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Order : 0…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. JCIT Range 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3577/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 3579/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Subros Limited, vs. Addl.CIT, Range 24, LGF, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AABCS3910P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Uma Shankar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Order : 0…

Subros Limited, Delhi vs. Addl CIT Rang 24 New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 3576/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3577/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 3579/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Subros Limited, vs. Addl.CIT, Range 24, LGF, World Trade Centre, New Delhi. Barakhamba Lane, Connaught Place, New Delhi – 110 001. (PAN : AABCS3910P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Uma Shankar, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing : 08.08.2024 Date of Order : 0…

Kurukshetra Expressway Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. DCIT Circle, Rewari

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 9544/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anu Krishna Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…cial precedents:- - UCO Bank vs CIT 237 ITR 889(SC) - Keshavji Ravji and Company vs. CIT: 183 ITR1, 17 (SC); - CIT vs. Indra Industries: 248 ITR 338 (SC); - CIT vs. Honda Cycles Pvt. Ltd. & ors. 228 ITR 463(SC); - CCE vs. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries [2008 13 SCC 1](SC) So appeal may be accepted. 18. Learned representative for department submitted that the Learned AO disallowed the impugned claim of depreciation following the CBDT circular no. 9/2014 dated 23/04/2014. Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of North Karnataka Expressway Ltd., while considering the case of an assessee who had claimed to be the…

Shah Originals vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 24 Mumbai

C.A. No.-002664-002664 - 2011Supreme Court21 Nov 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Section 80

…to the EEFC account is a direct revenue from the export of garments. ii. The foreign exchange credited to the EEFC account is used for the business purposes of the assessee. 1 (1978) 4 SCC 358. 2 (2009) 13 SCC 1. 3 (2013) SCC OnLine Kar 10731. 8 iii. The exchange fluctuation is incidentally attributable to the business of the assessee, and necessarily, the deduction under Section 80 HHC is available. iv. The computation of business income is correctly carried out by the assessee by applying Clause (baa) of Section 80 HHC. v. A combined read…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-1, Delhi vs. M/S Bio-Rad Laboratories (Singapore) Pte Ltd

ITA/564/2023HC Delhi03 Oct 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

…andur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd v. State of Karnataka76, it would not be possible to carry out the directions contained in the judgment dated 14 March 2012 passed in BPSL’s case. 75 Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. v. State of Odisha, (2012) 4 SCC 246 76 (2010) 13 SCC 1 Digitally Signed By:CHANDRASHEKHAR AN HARI SHANKAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:29 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:22.04.2024 22:30 Signature Not Verified WP(C) 12983/2022 & other batch matters Page 131 of 177 152. The Supreme Court did not agree, and held the officials of the State Government to be in contempt of…

Commissioner of Cental Excise and Service Tax Rohtak vs. M/S. Merino Panel Product Ltd

C.A. No.-006891 - 2018Supreme Court05 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 2Section 4Section 4(1)Section 4(1)(a)Section 4(1)(b)Section 4(3)(b)

…f the land. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries15 drew a line in the sand with regard to any future confusion on this point, in definitive terms and held as follows: 15 (2008) 13 SCC 1. 18 | P a g e “7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be give…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

…ion 2(15), counsel urged that the proviso operates at the stage of registration of trust under Section 12AA(1A) of the IT Act, 1961, when the authorities satisfy themselves with respect to the genuineness of the activity and scope of the trust. 39 (2008) 13 SCC 1 40 2018 SccOnline Delhi 7536 41 The High Court had relied upon the ratio in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Limited v. State of Maharashtra (1970) 3 SCC 323 , which ruled that the true character of the corporation in that case i.e., the Maharashtra Development Corporation was to act as an architectural agent for the development and gro…

Smt Geetha Srinivasulu vs. The State of Karnataka

WP/17404/2021HC Karnataka26 Jul 2022

Bench: ALOK ARADHE(ACJ),S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

Section 30

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY WRIT PETITION NO.17404/2021(GM-MM-S) BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA SRINIVASULU LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE MR. S.V. SRINIVASULU HAVING HER OFFICE AT OLD INCOME TAX OFFICE BUILIDNG NEAR SAHAKARI KALYANA MANTAPA N.C. COLONY, HOSAPETE - 583 203. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI ADITYA NARAYAN, ADV) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDSUTRY, VIDHANA SOUDHA BAN…

Vadakkenchery Service Co-Operative Bank Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/202/2019HC Kerala08 Jan 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

For Appellant: KUTHANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

…l not be open to the assessee to project an interpretation on the concerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the law laid down by the Court. 11. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “It is well settled proposition of law that Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases 17 Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective Statutes but when this Court or the High Court declares the law o…

Vadakkenchery Service Co Op Bank Ltd vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/199/2019HC Kerala08 Jan 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

For Appellant: KUTHANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

…l not be open to the assessee to project an interpretation on the concerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the law laid down by the Court. 11. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “It is well settled proposition of law that Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases 17 Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective Statutes but when this Court or the High Court declares the law o…

Kuthannur Service Co-Operative Bank Limited vs. The Income Tax Officer

ITA/197/2019HC Kerala08 Jan 2020

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

For Appellant: KUTHANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED

…l not be open to the assessee to project an interpretation on the concerned provision in tune with the circular, but against the law laid down by the Court. 11. In Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Gurukripa Resins Private Limited : (2011) 13 SCC 180, the Supreme Court has held as follows: “It is well settled proposition of law that Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of I.T.A.Nos.197 of 2019 & conn.cases 17 Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective Statutes but when this Court or the High Court declares the law o…

Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

ITA 2561/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year 3235/Del/2005 2001-02 2896/Del/2007 2002-03 938/Del/2007 2003-04 4078/Del/2015 2006-07 5894/Del/2015 2008-09 5895/Del/2015 2009-10 4079/Del/2015 2010-11 2561/Del/2018 2013-14 Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd, Ward-18(4), 2nd Floor, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon PAN: AABCT288…

Yum Restaurants Marketing Pvt Ltd vs. ITO Ward 18 (4)

ITA 938/DEL/2007[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year 3235/Del/2005 2001-02 2896/Del/2007 2002-03 938/Del/2007 2003-04 4078/Del/2015 2006-07 5894/Del/2015 2008-09 5895/Del/2015 2009-10 4079/Del/2015 2010-11 2561/Del/2018 2013-14 Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd, Ward-18(4), 2nd Floor, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon PAN: AABCT288…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5895/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year 3235/Del/2005 2001-02 2896/Del/2007 2002-03 938/Del/2007 2003-04 4078/Del/2015 2006-07 5894/Del/2015 2008-09 5895/Del/2015 2009-10 4079/Del/2015 2010-11 2561/Del/2018 2013-14 Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd, Ward-18(4), 2nd Floor, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon PAN: AABCT288…

M/S. Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5894/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

…Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Vs Income tax Officer AY 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04,2006-07, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2013-14 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. Assessment Year 3235/Del/2005 2001-02 2896/Del/2007 2002-03 938/Del/2007 2003-04 4078/Del/2015 2006-07 5894/Del/2015 2008-09 5895/Del/2015 2009-10 4079/Del/2015 2010-11 2561/Del/2018 2013-14 Yum! Restaurants Marketing Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ltd, Ward-18(4), 2nd Floor, Tower D, Global New Delhi Business Park, MG Road, Gurgaon PAN: AABCT288…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries (13 SCC 1) — Cited in 41 Judgments | BharatTax