Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 April, 2023
In Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India
and others11, the Delhi High Court also observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 28 March, 1995
―26. ***** This Court in the case of Pushpam
Pharmaceutical Company v. Collector of Central
Excise, Bombay, while dealing with the meaning
of the expression ―suppression of facts‖ in proviso
to Section 11A of the Act held that the term must
be construed strictly. It does not mean any
omission and the act must be deliberate and
willful to evade payment of duty. The Court,
further, held :-
Liebherr Machine Tools India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 12 February, 2016
―3.15 The Noticee in its defense also contested
the invocation of extended period of limitation. In
the instant case, it is observed that the Noticee
has not disclosed about the additional levy of
coal @ Rs. 295/- per metric ton. The Noticee
neither included the additional levy ibid, in their
invoices for payment of duty nor disclosed in the
statutory return i.e. ER-1. This fact of additional
levy was noticed by the department during the
course of audit of the books and accounts of
the Noticee. Thus, the Noticee has suppressed
the material facts from the knowledge of
7 EX/50607 OF 2018
department and have deliberately not paid
central excise duty on such additional levy of
Rs. 295/- per metric ton on coal extracted from
mines. Accordingly, I find that the Noticee has
contravened the provisions of Rule 6, Rule 11 and
Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Therefore,
extended period of limitation as provided under
Section 11A (4) of Central Excise Act 1944 is
righlty invoked in the instant case for the
recovery of Central Excise duty. I find in the case
of Central India Machinery Co. vs. CCE reported in
1989 (39) ELT 306 (Tri.), the Hon'ble Tribunal held
that, ―in case where there is non-levy/short levy
arising due to the suppression of facts, extended
period of five years is applicable‖. Accordingly, the
larger period invoked in this case is sustainable in
law.‖
(emphasis supplied)
M/S. Anand Nishikawa Co.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,Meerut on 23 September, 2005
30. This decision was referred to by the Supreme Court in Anand
Nishikawa Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise8
and the observations are as follows:
M/S. Uniworth Textiles Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Raipur on 22 January, 2013
31. These two decisions in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals and
Anand Nishikawa Company Ltd. were followed by the Supreme
Court in the subsequent decision in Uniworth Textile Limited vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur9 and the observation are:
M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007
32. The Supreme Court in Continental Foundation Joint
Venture Holding vs. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Chandigarh-I10 also held:
1