UGAM CHAND BHANDARI versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

UGAM CHAND BHANDARI versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

Water-proofed fabrics manufactured by the appellants, being impregnated/coated with a layer visible to the naked eye, are correctly classified under Tariff Heading 59.06. The department officials were regularly visiting the factory and aware of the process; thus, no fraud was played and extended limitation is not invocable.

Parties
Applicant: UGAM CHAND BHANDARI; Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Central Excise, Tariff Classification, Extended Limitation
Taxation Central Excise Tariff Classification Extended Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UGAM CHAND BHANDARI

Applicant

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether water-proofed fabrics are classifiable under Heading 52.07 or Heading 59.06 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule
  2. 2 Whether the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is invokable

Ratio Decidendi

Water-proofed fabrics manufactured by the appellants, being impregnated/coated with a layer visible to the naked eye, are correctly classified under Tariff Heading 59.06. The department officials were regularly visiting the factory and aware of the process; thus, no fraud was played and extended limitation is not invocable.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • That part of Tribunal's order regarding extended limitation under Section 11A is set aside
  • In other respects, Tribunal's order is maintained