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

2015 Supreme(SC) 1678

A.K.SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Zenith Spinners – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shweta Garg, Adv. Mr. Jitin Singhal, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amar Dave, Adv. Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Deepti, Adv. Ms. Anisha Mitra, Adv. Mrs Manik Karanjawala, Adv.

ORDER :

1. The Amendment Notification No. 10/2004 dated 02.06.2004 has been held to be bad in law by the High Court. The submission of the respondent herein was that in any case, the said notification would apply prospectively. It is admitted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has thereafter issued circular clarifying that the said notification would apply prospectively.

2. Most of the demand in the instant case pertains to the period prior to the issuance of the said notification and so on this ground itself, the show cause notice pertaining to that period would be bad in law.

3. In these circumstances, when we have found that the subject matter has become almost tax neutral, it is not necessary to entertain this appeal. The civil appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

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