TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
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 Emphasizes Limitation in Tax Matters</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III Versus M/s Sangko Pharmaceuticals</h3> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to limitation periods in tax matters and ... Duty demand - Bar of limitation - Held that:- it is not even necessary to look into the matter in more details on merits inasmuch as we find that not only the three Show Cause Notices were dropped, but, insofar as fourth Show Cause Notice, i.e., Notice dated 04.05.1994, is concerned, which is for the period between April, 1989, to November, 1992, the CESTAT has rightly held that the said Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Excise duty demand based on loaned factory manufacturing.2. Dropping of demand in three Show Cause Notices.3. Confirmation of demand in the fourth Show Cause Notice.4. CESTAT setting aside the demand on merits and limitation.5. Barred by limitation - Fourth Show Cause Notice.Analysis:The case involved the respondent-assessee loaning its factory to another company, M/s. CRLL, for manufacturing products. The appellant-Revenue raised excise duty demand based on the manufacturing activities at the loaned factory. Show Cause Notices were issued, and after the assessee's reply, the demand in three notices was dropped. However, the demand in the fourth Show Cause-cum-Demand Notice dated 04.05.1994 was confirmed by the Assessing Authority before the other three notices were dropped.The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) set aside the demand in the fourth notice both on merits and limitation grounds. The Supreme Court, comprising Mr. A.k. Sikri and Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ., reviewed the case and found that since the three Show Cause Notices were dropped, and the fourth notice was for a period between April 1989 to November 1992, the CESTAT rightly held that the fourth Show Cause Notice was barred by limitation.The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, emphasizing that there was no need to delve into the merits of the case further. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to limitation periods in tax matters and the significance of procedural compliance in such cases to protect the rights of the parties involved.
TaxTMI 
