Back
SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Dharampal Satyapal Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Through under Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Soumitra Saikia, J.
These writ petitions challenge the order-in-original No. 05/Pr.Commr./CE/GHY/2021-22 dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise Commissionerate, Guwahati whereby the demand of recovery of Central Excise in terms of the Notice issued under Section 11A (10) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 18 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity of Determination and Collections of Duty) Rule, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rule of 2008”) as well as recovery of interest and penalty was imposed. The particulars in respect of each of the writ petitions will be discussed later in the Judgment.
2. Since W.P(C) No. 3864/2022 (Dharampal Satyapat Ltd) was argued by the respective counsel as the lead case, the facts relating to this particular case are discussed. The other writ petitions have similar facts and circumstances which will be referred to later in the judgment.
3. The writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 3864/2022 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office in Delhi. The petitioner has an industrial unit in the city of Guwahati in the state of Assam. The petitioner is registered
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner's order was invalid due to failure to consider prior findings and the petitioner's submissions, violating principles of natural justice.
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
The court established that suppression of facts for extending limitation requires deliberate intent to evade duty, not mere failure to act.
Show cause notices issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944, are invalid if based on non-statutory norms and issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by Section 11A(11).
Demand of excise duty - Re-open of concluded proceedings - Not permissible.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
