TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on retrospective vs. prospective application of circulars in taxation.</h1> <h3>SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR</h3> SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 321 (SC) , 2007 (78) RLT 463 (SC), 2008 (11) S.T.R. 430 (SC) , ... Issues: Interpretation of a beneficial circular, retrospective application of circular, liability to pay duty based on date of issue of show cause notice.In this judgment, the issue revolved around the interpretation and application of a circular by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant challenged the final order passed by the Tribunal, arguing that the circular should be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment in Civil Appeal No. 4488 of 2005, where it was held that a beneficial circular should be applied retrospectively, while an oppressive circular should be applied prospectively. The Court emphasized that when a circular is against the assessee, they have the right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively. The Court, after considering the submissions and the mentioned judgment, ruled that the appellant was liable to pay duty from the date of the issue of the show cause notice, i.e., from 29-8-1990, rather than from 1-3-1990 as ordered by the Tribunal.The judgment highlighted the importance of the interpretation of circulars and the retrospective application of beneficial circulars in taxation matters. It established the principle that when a circular is beneficial to the assessee, it should be applied retrospectively to provide relief. The Court's decision was based on the precedent set in a previous case, emphasizing the significance of consistency and adherence to legal principles in determining the liability of the appellant. The ruling clarified the timeline for the payment of duty, emphasizing the date of the issue of the show cause notice as the starting point for calculating the liability. Ultimately, the Civil Appeal was allowed on the terms discussed, with no costs imposed on either party.
TaxTMI 