The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to ...

Adjudication after 7 years barred. Elasticity of time frame "where it is possible to do so", u/s 11A(11) clarified. Legislature's intent emphasized.

June 11, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise HC

The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to do so" u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, ruling that it allows flexibility only in exceptional circumstances beyond the Adjudicating Authority's control. The legislative intent behind Section 11A(11) emphasizes timely adjudication. The Court held that the 6-month or 2-year limitation cannot be extended to over 7 years. Citing K.M Sharma Vs. I.T.O, it stressed strict construction of fiscal statutes for certainty. Delay impacts Article 14 of the Constitution; a reasonable time frame of 5 years u/s 11A is upheld. The Court found a 7-year delay unreasonable, emphasizing completion within the statutory 5-year limit. The application was allowed.

View Source

← Previous Next →

The High Court interpreted the phrase "where it is possible to ...

Adjudication after 7 years barred. Elasticity of time frame "where it is possible to do so", u/s 11A(11) clarified. Legislature's intent emphasized.

June 11, 2024

Case Laws Central Excise HC

You may also like:

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. The adjudication of the show cause notice...

Initiation of CIRP - Application barred by time limitation or not - The acknowledgement made by the Principal Borrower within three years’ period from the date of...

Delayed adjudication after lapse of more than 7 years from the date of show cause notice (SCN) - In the instant case period of more than 7 years from the issuance of...

Rectification u/s 154 - Period of limitation as per section 154(7) - In the present case, the order u/s. 143(3) was passed on 26/12/2011 and the financial year is FY...

Assessee company failed to deduct tax at source as reflected in Tax Auditor's report. Demand u/s 201(1)/201(14) was barred by limitation. Assessee submitted that...

This case pertains to the precedence and priority of consideration between an application filed u/s 54(C) and Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC)...

The case involved denial of exemption u/s 11 due to late filing of return. The department argued return must be filed u/s 139(1) to claim exemption u/s 11. An amendment...

10kg of gold consisting of 10 gold bars, with 7 bars bearing foreign markings and 3 bars without markings, was seized along with cash from an employee of the appellant....

Section 7 application rejected as barred by Section 10A of IBC. Supreme Court held no bar in amending pleadings or filing additional documents u/s 7, but present case...

The NCLAT held that Section 238 of the IBC gives overriding effect to proceedings u/s 7, despite Section 10 of CPC. Proceedings u/s 7 must proceed, as the Code's...

Delayed adjudication of show cause notice without reasonable cause - Delay in finalizing assessments and issuing demand - Classification of goods under appropriate...

Exemption u/s 11 - disallowing of the amount of accumulation made u/s.11(2) & 11(1)(a) - failure to E-filing of Form-10 in time - since admittedly, the exemption of the...

Exemption u/s 11 - Excess expenditure incurred by the trust/charitable institution in earlier assessment year could be allowed to be set off against income of subsequent...

CENVAT Credit - time limitation - entitlement for Credit beyond six month - since the time limit has been extended from six months to one year by substitution in the...

Section 19(11) of TNVAT was a valid piece of legislation, cannot be struck down as being either unreasonable or discriminatory and violative of Article 265 and 360A of...

Quick Updates: