Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan

Comnr.of Income Tax vs. M/S.Times Traconp

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

…ed in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he is a proprietor of Baba Enterprises; however, he did not place any document on record to prove this fact. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, that where no evidence was led to prove that the complainant was the owner of a proprietorship concern, he cannot be called to be a payee or holder in due Course. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the affidavit of the complainant in para-14 as under: - “14. The relevant part of the affidavit filed by the appellant-complainant before…

M/S International Merchandising Company Llc (Earlier Known As International Merchandising Corporation) vs. Commissioner Service Tax New Delhi

Bench: The Tribunal Arose From An Order Dated 1 August 2013 Of The Commissioner (Adjudication) Which Dealt With Five Show Cause Notices Dated 20 October 2009, 20 April 2010, 20 April 2011, 23 March 2012 & 23 April 2013. The First Of The Five Show Cause Notices Invoked The Extended Period Of Limitation.

…(68) and Section 65(86b) of the Finance Act 1994, there was no warrant to allow the invocation of the extended period of limitation and to direct the determination of the penalty following the re-quantification of the demand. The extended period 6 (1989) 4 SCC 275 CA 3532-36/2020 16 of limitation would clearly not stand attracted in respect of the first show cause notice dated 20 October 2009. The show cause notice shall hence have to be confined to the normal period of limitation excluding the extended period. 25. As far as the penalty is concerned, we are of the considered view that there wa…

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

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

…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…

The Commissioner of Income tAx II vs. M/s. Softpro Systems (P) Limited

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) For The Commission Of An Offence Punishable

…rson. This Court should not interfere with the reasonable view of the learned Trial Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal; therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. He relied upon Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, A.C. Narayana versus State of Maharashtra, 2015 (12) SCC 203 and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217 in support of his submission. 7 2025:HHC:21725-DB 11. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed ag…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Hyderabad vs. K.Sudha Rani

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Acquitted Of The Commission Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Ni Act). 1 Whether Reporters Of Local Papers May Be Allowed To See The Judgment? Yes.

…ed in paragraph 1 of the complaint that he is a proprietor of Baba Enterprises; however, he did not place any document on record to prove this fact. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan, (2011) 4 SCC 275, that where no evidence was led to prove that the complainant was the owner of a proprietorship concern, he cannot be called to be a payee or holder in due Course. The Hon’ble Supreme Court noticed the affidavit of the complainant in para-14 as under: - “14. The relevant part of the affidavit filed by the appellant-complainant before…

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

The appeal is allowed

…ompanies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs6 in the following words:- “53…Our attention was drawn to the cases of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments (1989) 2 SCC 127, Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE (1995) 6 SCC 117, Padmini Products v. CCE (1989) 4 SCC 275, T.N. Housing Board v. CCE 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and CCE v. H. M. M. Ltd. (supra). In all these cases the Court was concerned with the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act which, like in the case of the Customs Act, contemplated the increase in the period of limitation for issu…

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

The appeal is allowed

…ompanies Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs6 in the following words:- “53…Our attention was drawn to the cases of CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments (1989) 2 SCC 127, Cosmic Dye Chemical v. CCE (1995) 6 SCC 117, Padmini Products v. CCE (1989) 4 SCC 275, T.N. Housing Board v. CCE 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and CCE v. H. M. M. Ltd. (supra). In all these cases the Court was concerned with the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act which, like in the case of the Customs Act, contemplated the increase in the period of limitation for issu…

Commr.of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam vs. M/S.Ncc Blue Water Products Ltd

…d of limitation, learned counsel commended us to the decisions of this Court in M/s Padmini Products Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore5; Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/s 4 2005 (191) E.L.T. 1174 (Tri.-Mumbai) 5 (1989) 4 SCC 275 8 Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad6 and Gopal Zarda Udyog & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi7. 13.The core question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the sales of shrimps and shrimp seeds by the assessee in DTA, without requisite permission from the Development Commissioner, are to be assessed to…

M/S. Amco Batteries Ltd., Bangalore vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Bangalore

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

…e appellant which would empower the authorities to invoke extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Act. This has been made clear repeatedly by this Court. In M/s Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [(1989) 4 SCC 275] this Court has held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer of conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew otherwise, is required to be established before it is saddled with any liability beyond the period of six months. The Court pertinently observ…

M/S. Associated Cement Companies Ltd vs. Comnr. of Customs

Appeals are dismissed but in

…Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. M/s Chemphar Drugs and Liniments, Hyderabad (1989) 2 SCC 127 , Cosmic Dye Chemical vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay (1995) 6 SCC 117, M/s Padmini Products vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore (1989) 4 SCC 275, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Another 1995 Supp (1) SCC 50 and Collector of Central Excise vs. H.M.M. Limited 1995 (76) ELT 497. In all these cases the Court was concerned with http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 28 the applicability of the proviso to Section 11-A of the C…