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

2007 Supreme(SC) 1844

S.H.KAPADIA, B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Dharamendra Textile Processors – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.H. Kapadia, J. - Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted in special leave petitions.

3. In this batch of civil appeals, the question which arises for determination is whether Section 11AC of the Centra). Excise Act, inserted by Finance Act, 1996 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evade payment of tax, should be read to contain mens rea as an essential requirement.

4. According to the department, the said section should be read as penalty for statutory offences; that the executing authority had no discretion in the matter of penalty and that the adjudicating authority in such cases was duty bound to impose penalty equal to the duty so determined. On the other hand, it is the case of the assessee that mens rea was an essential requirement of the said section particularly when the section refers to intention in the matter of evading payment of duty. The assessee has also invited our attention, in this connection, to the provisions of Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act which according to the assessee is identically worded to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. The assessee has also placed reliance on a recent judgment of the Division Bench of t

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