Back
HARISANKAR V. MENON
APOLLO TYRES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
1. These three writ petitions essentially seek to challenge the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Authority under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the ‘Act’) on the ground of limitation.
2. The short facts as culled out from W.P. (C) No. 16115 of 2019 are as under:
The petitioner is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of MS/TMT Bars and Rods, out of MS Ingots. It is on the final products like MS/TMT Rods and Bars that excise duty is exigible. They contend that Ext.P1 show cause notice dated 28.04.2015 was issued by the 1st respondent noticing the consumption of raw materials during the years 2010-11 onwards and the actual production carried out. The notice states, with reference to the raw materials used and the actual production, that the output was only 91.74% of the raw materials. It further states that as per the norms fixed by M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (for short, ‘SAIL’) the output should be 95%. With reference to the afore, the notice states that there was a short production of 6698.703 MT and the said quantity ought to be assessed to duty. The petitioner states that it submitted Ext.P2 reply to the 1st respondent h
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).
Delay in conclusion of proceedings pursuant to show cause notices without proper explanation is unlawful and arbitrary, and the concept of call book is contrary to the statutory mandate.
In cases of revenue disputes, undue delay in adjudication of show cause notices violates fundamental rights and regulatory statutes, rendering them invalid.
Fraud vitiates limitations under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, allowing notices despite elapsed time where fraud or suppression of facts is established.
Extended limitation period for tax demands requires evidence of deliberate suppression or intent to evade tax; mere non-payment is insufficient.
Proceedings under section 11A of Act are adjudicatory proceedings and authority which decides same is a quasi-judicial authority. Such proceedings are strictly governed by statutory provisions. Secti....
The legal principle established in the judgment is that the attempt to revive adjudication proceedings after an inordinate delay must be justified and reasonable, in line with the legal framework for....
Delay in adjudication of show cause notices is a violation of principles of natural justice.
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
