SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 310

K. T. THOMAS, M. M. PUNCHHI, M. SRINIVASAN
Mills Company LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise – Respondent


Judgment

Thomas, J.- The moot point in this appeal is this: Whether the period of six months envisaged in Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’), for issuing show cause notice, stood extended by any further period so as to enable the Revenue to scale over the hurdle of limitation? Respondent (Revenue) advanced two alternative premises in support of the plea that the said period of six months stood extended. First is, there was only a provisional assessment and hence the ‘relevant date’ for issuing the show cause notice could be counted only from final assessment. Second is that an order of stay issued by the High Court of Delhi on 12.8.1981 virtually amounted to a bridle against issuing show cause notice and hence the period stood extended by the entire time when the stay order was in operation.

2. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT-the acronym hereafter) held that the assessment was not provisional and hence the first premise was not available to the Revenue. But it held by a majority of 2:1 that the interim order of the Delhi High Court dated 12.8.1991 operated as virtually a stay, though not expressly so, against issuance of sh



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top