Case Law Details
Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
In the order in original dated 20.11.2019 the adjudicating authority had recorded a clear finding that the only presumption for the demand was that because the maximum retail price of the goods manufactured at Una, Himachal Pradesh and those manufactured elsewhere by the petitioner, which included excise duty, were the same, therefore the maximum retail price of the goods manufactured at Una, Himachal Pradesh included central excise duty which were collected from the ultimate consumers but not deposited in the government treasury. Negating the fallacy of this presumption the adjudicating authority held that other than such a presumption, there was no evidence at all to establish that any amount was collected by the petitioner as representing duty of excise. In such a case, provisions of section 11D of the Central Excise Act would not be applicable. This again is a conclusive finding of fact which has remained undisturbed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Prakash Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, learned senior counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of show cause-cum-demand notice dated 26.05.2020 issued by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Audit-Thane i.e. respondent No.2.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
