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

2005 Supreme(SC) 553

2005(3) Supreme 167
Supreme Court of India
(From Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench at Kolkata)
S.N. Variava, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur —Appellant
versus
M/s. Dabur (India) Ltd. —Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1112 of 2003
Decided on 1-4-2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rajiv Dutta, Sr. Advocate, Tufail A. Khan, S. Beno Bencigar, P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates.­
For the Respondent : V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates.

Important point
Where classification list filed by assessees were duly approved then extended period of limitation would not be available to the Department.

Headnote:Central Excise—Where classification list filed by assessee was duly approved, extended period of limitation would not be available to the Department—Tribunal’s finding that extended period of limitation was not available to Department as classification list filed by assessee was duly approved from time to time suffered no illegality. (Para 3)

Order

This Appeal is filed against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Eastern Bench, Kolkata dated 26th June, 2002.

2. This Appeal is only against that portion of the Judgment where the Tribunal has held that the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department as classification lists filed by the assessee were duly approved from time to time.

3. This Court in the case of O.K. Play (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi-III, (Gurgaon) ­reported in 2005 (66) RLT 657 (SC) held that in cases where classification list filed by the assesses have been duly approved then the extended period of limitation would not be available to the Department. We are in agreement with this view. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the impugned Judgment. We see no reason to interfere.

4. The Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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 Back to top