LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 17-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN, V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

y 
- , 
--.,_ 
SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR 
JANUARY 17, 2007 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRUPURKAR, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act, 1944: 
Excise duty -Date from which liable to be paid-Held, in view of the 
judgment in Mysore Electricals Industries case*, assessee is liable to pay 
the duty from the date of issue of the show cause notice and not from an 
earlier date as ordered by the Tribunal. 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mysore Electricals 
Industries Ltd., (2007) 204 ELT 517, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3596 of2005. 
From the Final Order No. 204/05-NB-A dated 14.1.2005 of the Customs, 
Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, New Delhi in Appeal 
A 
B 
c 
D 
No. E/3422/93-NB-(A). 
E 
A.R. Madhav Rao and M.P. Devanath for the Appellant. 
K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao and B. Krishna Prasad 
for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
F 
This appeal is directed against the Final Order no.204/05-NB-A dated 
G 
14th January, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate 
Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/3422/93-NB-A. 
We have heard Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel for the 
appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the 
H 
1095 
A 
B 
1096 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] I S.C.R. 
respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower Authorities 
and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by the learned counsel for the 
appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal 
No.4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mis. 
Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., reported in (2007) 204 ELT 517. In the 
said Judgment, this Court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied 
retrospectively while oppresive circular has to be applied prospectively. 
Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim 
enforcement of the same prospectively. 
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the 
C 
appellant and also of the judgment of this Court in C.A. No.4484/05 (supra), 
the appellant is liable to pay the duty from 29.8.1990 i.e. from the date of 
issue of the show cause notice and not from 1.3 .1990 as ordered by the 
Tribunal. 
D 
The Civil Appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. 
R.P. 
Appeal allowed. 
... 
'ยท