Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.23 seconds)
M/S Mvm Business Services vs Noida on 20 February, 2026 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, Hyderabad on 14 February, 1989

(ii) CCE v. Chemphar Drugs and Liniments [(1989) 2 SCC 127] "7. The respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the matter and noted that the appellant‟s case was that the demand Service Tax Appeal No.70741 of 2025 22 for duty for the period beyond six months was time- barred; and the respondent‟s case was that the demand for the period beyond 6 months from the receipt of show-cause notice, was time-barred inasmuch as there was no suppression or misstatement of facts by the appellant with a view to evade payment of duty. In support of its claim the respondent produced classification list approved by the authorities during the period 1978-79, and also produced extracts from the survey register showing that the officers had been visiting its factory from time to time and also taking note of the previous goods manufactured by the respondent. The plea of the Revenue was that there was suppression and/or mis-declaration and/or wrong information furnished in the declaration itself. The Tribunal noted the facts as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 208 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1   2 3 Next