Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements

1 SCC 368Supreme Court of India2005#687 most cited

What is Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements authority for?

Mandatory provisions in taxation statutes must be strictly complied with. Non-compliance with a mandatory provision results in the cancellation of any concession granted.

146

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. · Commissioner of Central Excise · mandatory provisions · strict interpretation · taxation statutes · concession · non-compliance · cancellation

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements

State Pollution Control Board Odisha, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Warad 5(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed and stay petition stands dismissed

ITA 301/CTK/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwals.P.No.11/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year :2017-18 State Pollution Control Board State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward 5(2), Plot No.A-118, Paribesh Bhawan, 118, Paribesh Bhawan, Bhubaneswar Nilakantha Nagar, Agar, Nayapali, Nayapali, Unit-Vii, Bhubaneswar Neswar Pan/Gir No.Aaals 2490 J Aaals 2490 J (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/10/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/10/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CA walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 4

…rinciple that taxing statues are to be construed strictly” 4.8 In para 49 of the Checkmate Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforesaid conclusionby affirmingits own judgment in the case of the State of Jharkhand Vs M/S Ambay Cements (2005) 1 SCC 368. The quoted part of the judgment of M/S Ambay Cement(supra) is reproduced as under: 26. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of interpretation…