Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR

Decided
17 January 2007
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN, V.S. SIRPURKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2007] 1 S.C.R. 1095 · 2007 INSC 55

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This appeal is directed against the Final Order no.204/05-NB-A dated 14th January, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/3422/93-NB-A.

p. 1095, margin G

We have heard Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower Authorities and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mis. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., reported in (2007) 204 ELT 517. In the said Judgment, this Court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppresive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively.

pp. 1095–1096, margin G

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and also of the judgment of this Court in C.A. No.4484/05 (supra), the appellant is liable to pay the duty from 29.8.1990 i.e. from the date of issue of the show cause notice and not from 1.3 .1990 as ordered by the Tribunal.

p. 1096, margin B

The Civil Appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1096, margin D