Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court)

CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court)

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 19, 2008 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

In the context of s. 35 of the Excise Act, held (1) Where the statute confers on the authority concerned a limited power of condonation of delay or does not provide any such power, the authority has no power to condone delay beyond the prescribed period;

(2) unless a new statute expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed that it deprives a person of an accrued right. On the other hand, a law which is procedural in nature, and does not affect the rights, is retrospectively applicable;

(3) a new law of limitation providing for a shorter period cannot extinguish a vested right of action;

(4) An amendment to the period of limitation for commencing a legal proceeding will apply to existing rights subject to the exceptions that (i) if under the amending Act the remedy suddenly stands barred as a result of a shorter period of limitation, the same cannot be held to govern the case as otherwise the result will be to deprive the suitor of an accrued right and (ii) where the amendment leaves the claimant with such a short period for commencing the legal proceeding so as to make it unpractical for him to avail of the remedy.

Note: s. 35 is pari materia to ss. 256 & 260A of the I. T. Act.

Related Judgements

  1. M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme Court) 

    Where the assessee had led satisfactory evidence that its business was that of a commission agent and not a trader and 10-11 years had passed, the assessee could not be held responsible for non-appearance of five traders to whom summons … M/s Ahmed Anis vs. CIT (Supreme…
  2. K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.) (Supreme Court) 

    Cash in bank is conceptually different from cash in hand. It is not permissible for the Revenue to withdraw money from the attached bank accounts. However, as the order u/s 132B was not challenged, no relief given. Directions given for … K.C.C. Software Ltd vs. DIT (Inv.)…
  3. DCIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies (Supreme Court) 

    Commitment charges paid in respect of borrowed moneys are allowable as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act.
  4. JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) 

    The question as to whether the assessee had an option in law to claim partial depreciation in respect of any block of assets is remanded to the High Court to consider in the light of Mahendra Mills 243 ITR 56 … JCIT vs. United Phosphorus (Supreme Court) Read…
  5. DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court) 

    (i) Interest paid in respect of borrowings on capital assets not put to use in the concerned financial year are deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act; (ii) Interest on all moneys borrowed for the purposes of business are deductible … DCIT vs. Core Health Care (Supreme Court)…
0 comments on “CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court)”
2 Pings/Trackbacks for "CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (Supreme Court)"
  1. archives » Blog Archive » Ornate Traders vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) says:
    September 1, 2008 at 9:45 am

    […] Also: A collosal waste of tax resources! and CCE vs. Punjab Fibres (SC). Posted in All Judgements, High Court […]

  2. archives » Blog Archive » CCE vs. Shruti Colorants (Bombay High Court) says:
    September 8, 2008 at 11:56 am

    […] Also: CCE Punjab Fibres 223 ELT 337 (SC) & CCE vs. Asia Pacific […]