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

2002 Supreme(SC) 472

N. S. HEGDE, S. P. BHARUCHA, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
Asian Paints India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay – Respondent


ORDER

We have read the judgments of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which are impugned in these appeals. We are of the view that the judgments viewed Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act in the proper perspective. The two sections operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes. Different time limits are, therefore, set out therein. We do not accept the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35E if the time limited provided in Section 11A has expired. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be imperssible.

2. The appeals are dismissed with costs.

Appeals dismissed.

**************

Parallel Citations of Other Journals:

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 2002(6) Supreme 36 : 2002(142) ELT 522 : 2002(50) RLT 873 : (2002) 103 ECR 278 : 2002(82) CC 459.

00022

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