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

2015 Supreme(SC) 1232

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise - Appellant
Vs.
Sangko Pharmaceuticals - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2006
Decided On : 04-09-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Shankar Divate, T.M. Singh, Ritesh Kumar and B. Krishna Prasad, Advs.
For the Respondents: M.H. Patil and Sandeep Narain, Advs.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period to the demand for excise duty, specifically in the context of manufacturing activities under a loaned factory.

Headnote:

Excise Duty - Manufacturing under Loaned Factory - Limitation

Fact of the Case:

The Respondent loaned its factory to M/s. CRLL, who manufactured products. The appellant-Revenue noticed the use of 'Crossland' in a medical pamphlet and demanded excise duty from the Respondent. Three Show Cause Notices were dropped, but the demand in the fourth notice was confirmed before the others were dropped.

Finding of the Court:

The CESTAT set aside the demand for the fourth Show Cause Notice, citing both merits and limitation. The court found that the notice for the period between April 1989 to November 1992 was barred by limitation, and dismissed the appeal on this ground alone.

Issues: The issues revolved around the demand for excise duty based on the manufacturing activities under a loaned factory and the limitation period for the fourth Show Cause Notice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the fourth Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed based on the ground that the fourth Show Cause Notice for the period between April 1989 to November 1992 was barred by limitation.

ORDER :

1. The Respondent-Assessee herein had loaned its factory to one M/s. Cross Land Research Laboratories Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'M/s. CRLL' for short) and during this period, it is the M/s. CRLL, who manufactured certain products. However, during investigation, it was noticed by the appellant-Revenue from Medical Pamphlet of Mobinak that the word "Crossland" is printed thereupon and also there is a picture of product "Mobinak Tab" manufactured by M/s. Guardian Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'GHCPL' for short). Show Cause Notices were issued in which excise duty was demanded from the Respondent-Assessee. After the assessee submitted its reply, demand in respect of three Show Cause Notices were dropped.

2. However, in respect of fourth Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 04.05.1994, the Assessing Authority had passed orders confirming the demand. This happened before the dropping of the Show Cause-cum-Demand Notices in respect of other three notices. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') has set aside the demand both on merits as well as on limitation.

3. We have gone through the matter and it is not even necessary to look into the matter in more details on merits inasmuch as we find that not only the three Show Cause Notices were dropped, but, insofar as fourth Show Cause Notice, i.e., Notice dated 04.05.1994, is concerned, which is for the period between April, 1989, to November, 1992, the CESTAT has rightly held that the said Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation. The appeal is dismissed on this ground alone.

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 Back to top