{"id":114288,"date":"2000-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000"},"modified":"2018-09-21T18:01:38","modified_gmt":"2018-09-21T12:31:38","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.N.Phukan, S.R.Babu<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t05\/04\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.N.Phukan, S.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      RAJENDRA BABU, J.\t :\n<\/p>\n<p>      These  appeals are filed under Section 35-L(b) of\t the<br \/>\nCentral\t Excise\t Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as\t`the<br \/>\nAct&#8217;].\t The  background facts leading to these appeals\t are<br \/>\nthat  the  manufacturer, who is a respondent herein,  having<br \/>\navailed\t of the procedure for payment of duty under the\t Act<br \/>\nin  terms of Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules cannot<br \/>\nclaim  the  benefit  of Section 3A(4) for  determination  of<br \/>\nactual\tproduction  and re- determination of amount of\tduty<br \/>\npayable\t by  him with reference to the actual production  at<br \/>\nthe  rates  as\tspecified in the said Section.\t Earlier  on<br \/>\nseveral\t occasions when the matter reached the Tribunal\t the<br \/>\nview taken is that the Collector (Appeals) had to follow the<br \/>\norders\tmade  by  the  Tribunal and the order  made  by\t the<br \/>\nCollector  is not in accordance with law inasmuch as no duty<br \/>\nis  payable  by\t the manufacturer otherwise than  on  actual<br \/>\nproduction and clearance and no demand of duty could be made<br \/>\nor  recovered  on  the basis of\t production  capacity  alone<br \/>\nwithout\t verification.\tIn case of M\/s Minakshi Castings (P)<br \/>\nLtd.,  one of the respondents before us, it is held that the<br \/>\nright  vested in the assessee under Section 3A(4) cannot  be<br \/>\ndenied\ton the ground that he had opted for payment of\tduty<br \/>\nunder  Rule  96ZO(3).\tThe  matter   is  remanded  to\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  for determination of the actual production and<br \/>\nre-determination of duty liable to be paid with reference to<br \/>\nthe  actual production in accordance with the provisions  of<br \/>\nSection 3A(4).\tHence these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  another batch of matters writ petitions have\tbeen<br \/>\nfiled before the High Court of Delhi and certain orders have<br \/>\nbeen obtained thereto at the interim stage which are subject<br \/>\nmatter\t of   another  appeal  before\tus  and\t  in   those<br \/>\ncircumstances the Delhi High Court had ordered that &#8220;it will<br \/>\nbe  open to the manufacturers to submit applications on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of actual production and, if any such application  is<br \/>\nsubmitted,  the\t same  shall  be   duly\t considered  by\t the<br \/>\ncompetent  authority  in accordance with the Rules.&#8221; Now  we<br \/>\nare  informed at the bar that the very questions arising  in<br \/>\nthe  cases before us stand referred to a Larger Bench by the<br \/>\nTribunal  for  deciding\t (i) whether there is  any  conflict<br \/>\nbetween\t the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 3A  of<br \/>\nthe Act and sub- rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise<br \/>\nRules  ?, and (ii) whether a manufacturer who has  exercised<br \/>\nthe  option to make payment of amount based on total furnace<br \/>\ncapacity installed in his factory under sub-rule (3) of Rule<br \/>\n96ZO  and not on the basis of annual capacity of  production<br \/>\ncan   make  an\tapplication   for  determining\tthe   actual<br \/>\nproduction  during  the\t period his aforesaid option  is  in<br \/>\noperation ?\n<\/p>\n<p>      An objection has been raised that these appeals do not<br \/>\ninvolve\t determination of any question having a relation  to<br \/>\nthe  rate of duty of excise or to the value of the goods for<br \/>\npurpose\t of  assessment\t and,  therefore,  even\t if  at\t all<br \/>\naggrieved  by  the  order  of the  Tribunal  ought  to\thave<br \/>\nfollowed  the  procedure in Section 35- L(a) of obtaining  a<br \/>\nreference  to the High Court and on its decision to approach<br \/>\nthis  Court under certificate.\tThe learned Attorney General<br \/>\nwithout\t entering  into\t the controversy as  to\t whether  an<br \/>\nappeal\tin  this case is maintainable or not made  it  clear<br \/>\nthat  he  would\t seek  conversion   of\tthese  appeals\tinto<br \/>\npetitions  for\tgrant of special leave under Article 136  of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India.  Appropriate applications in this<br \/>\nregard have also been made.\n<\/p>\n<p>      When  the\t wind  out  the same sails  set\t in  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  has  been taken off by the astute stand of\t the<br \/>\nlearned\t Attorney  General,  the  learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondents addressed arguments that these are not fit cases<br \/>\nwhere  this  Court  should  exercise  its  discretion  under<br \/>\nArticle 136 to grant leave and entertain these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>      It  is  no  doubt\t true that a  Larger  Bench  of\t the<br \/>\nTribunal itself is now seized of the very question raised in<br \/>\nthese  appeals.\t  However,  the\t  learned  Attorney  General<br \/>\npointed\t out  that there are at least two decisions  of\t the<br \/>\nAndhra\tPradesh High Court and Allahabad High Court on\tthis<br \/>\nissue.\t In  Sathavahana  Steels  &amp;  Alloys  (P)  Ltd.\t vs.<br \/>\nGovernment of India, 1999n (114) ELT 787, the Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nHigh  Court  has  taken the view that Rule  96ZO(3)  of\t the<br \/>\nExcise\tRules has been framed for the facility of  assessees<br \/>\nand  being  at\tthe volition and option of the\tassessee  to<br \/>\navail  of the said procedure instead of the procedure  under<br \/>\nsub-  rules  (1)  and (2) thereof and once  such  option  is<br \/>\navailed\t of he takes advantages and disadvantages associated<br \/>\nwith  it.   An\tassessee  who comes  under  the\t purview  of<br \/>\nsub-rule  (3)  of the scheme cannot obviously avail  of\t the<br \/>\nreliefs\t provided to the assessee who preferred to pay\tduty<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith sub-rule (1) thereof.  The\t High  Court<br \/>\nfurther\t stated\t that it is not probable that  the  assessee<br \/>\nwill  not  be  aware  of the adverse  factors  which  affect<br \/>\nproduction.  He cannot, therefore, claim that provisions for<br \/>\nabatement  of  duty and re-determination of the capacity  as<br \/>\ncontained  in  the proviso to sub- sections (3) and  (4)  of<br \/>\nSection\t 3A  should be imported to Rule 96ZO(3).  When\tonce<br \/>\nthe  assessee opts for lumpsum payment under Rule 96ZO(3) he<br \/>\nforgoes\t the  benefit under the proviso to sub-sections\t (3)<br \/>\nand  (4)  of  Section  3A  as\tlaid  down  in\texpress\t and<br \/>\ncategorical terms by sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZO of the Excise<br \/>\nRules.\t The  Allahabad High Court in Pravesh  Castings\t (P)<br \/>\nLtd.,  Kanpur  Nagar  vs.  Commissioner of  Central  Excise,<br \/>\nAllahabad   &amp;  Anr.,  2000  (36)   RLT\t239,  directed\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner to re- determine the production capacity afresh<br \/>\nand  to\t follow\t the orders of the Tribunal.   There  is  no<br \/>\ndiscussion  as\tto  the scope of the relevant rules  or\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe enactment.\tAgain another Bench  of\t the<br \/>\nAllahabad  High\t Court\tconsidered this\t question  in  Civil<br \/>\nMiscellaneous  Writ  Petition  No.  1127 of 1999  M\/s  Jalan<br \/>\nCastings  (P)  Ltd.  vs.  Commissioner of Central  Excise  &amp;<br \/>\nOrs..\twherein\t the view taken is that when a\tmanufacturer<br \/>\nhas  asked  for a lumpsum method of assessment\tas  provided<br \/>\nunder  Rule  96ZO(3) of the Excise Rules,  the\tmanufacturer<br \/>\ncannot\tback out and claim that he should be assessed in the<br \/>\nnormal mode under Section 3A(4) of the Act and such a course<br \/>\nis  not\t available  to him.  In\t these\tcircumstances,\twhen<br \/>\ndifferent  Benches  of\tthe  same   High  Court\t have  taken<br \/>\ndifferent  views  and  another High Court has taken  a\tview<br \/>\ncontrary  to  what has been stated by the Tribunal and\twhen<br \/>\nthere is uncertainty as to the state of law, it is eminently<br \/>\nproper\tfor  this Court to grant leave in such a matter\t and<br \/>\nsettle the legal position.  We thought over the matter as to<br \/>\nwhether\t we  should ourselves consider the questions  raised<br \/>\nbefore\tus  or\tset aside the order impugned before  us\t and<br \/>\nremand the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration.<br \/>\nWe  are of the view that when there is uncertainty in law so<br \/>\nfar  as\t the  High Courts are concerned, it is\tnot  at\t all<br \/>\nproper\tto allow the Tribunal to re- examine the matters  as<br \/>\nit  would  not be in the interest of either the assessee  or<br \/>\nthe Department.\t In this special background, we do not think<br \/>\nwe  can\t accede\t to the objection raised on  behalf  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  that we should not entertain the special  leave<br \/>\npetitions  and reject these matters.  On the other hand,  we<br \/>\nwould grant leave and proceed to deal with these appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In these proceedings the validity of the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  Rules is not in challenge but only their interpretation<br \/>\nand application have to be examined.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Section  3A of the Act enables the Central  Government<br \/>\nto charge excise duty on the basis of capacity of production<br \/>\nin  respect  of\t notified  goods.  This clause\tcame  to  be<br \/>\ninserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1997.  The intention<br \/>\nto  introduce  this provision appears to be that in  certain<br \/>\nsectors,  like\tinduction furnaces, steel  re-rolled  mills,<br \/>\netc.  evasion of excise duty on goods is substantial and the<br \/>\nproduction  is\tnot disclosed accurately and  collection  of<br \/>\nexcise\tduty  on the basis of their production\tcapacity  is<br \/>\nthought of as appropriate.  Under the scheme evolved in this<br \/>\nprovision  the\tannual\tproduction  capacity  of  mills\t and<br \/>\nfurnaces is determined by the Commissioner of Central Excise<br \/>\nin  terms  of the Rules to be framed under Section 3A(2)  of<br \/>\nthe Act by the Central Government.  Thereafter, the assessee<br \/>\nwould be liable to pay duty based on such determination.  If<br \/>\nthe   annual   production  capacity    determined   by\t the<br \/>\nCommissioner  is disputed by the assessee, the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nis  required to re-determine the same as provided in Section<br \/>\n3A(4).\n<\/p>\n<p>      Rules  96ZO  and\t96ZP  provide for  procedure  to  be<br \/>\nfollowed  by the manufacturer of ingots and billets and\t hot<br \/>\nre-rolled products respectively.  The scheme envisaged under<br \/>\nthese  provisions  is identical.  These two Rules come\tinto<br \/>\nplay after the Commissioner of Central Excise determines the<br \/>\nannual capacity of the factory or mills manufacturing ingots<br \/>\nor  billets  and hot re-rolled steel products under  Section<br \/>\n3-A  of\t the  Act  read with the  relevant  annual  capacity<br \/>\ndetermination  rules.\tRules 96ZO and 96ZP proceed  to\t lay<br \/>\ndown  the  manner  of payment of duty, claim  for  abatement<br \/>\nnon-payment,  payment  of  interest\/penalty and\t such  other<br \/>\nincidental  matters.  Rule 96ZO classifies the manufacturers<br \/>\ninto  two classes, those whose furnace capacity is 3  tonnes<br \/>\nand other manufacturers with high capacity of furnaces.\t The<br \/>\nrate  of  duty payable, except for period from\t1.1.1997  to<br \/>\n31.3.1998  which was the transitional period, is Rs.   750\/-<br \/>\nper  tonne, at the time of clearance.  Total amount of\tduty<br \/>\nshould be paid by the 31st March of relevant financial year,<br \/>\notherwise  interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum  is<br \/>\npayable\t and  if  the duty has not been paid  by  this\tdate<br \/>\npenalty\t is also payable which is equal to outstanding\tduty<br \/>\nor  Rs.\t  Five thousand whichever is greater.  Sub-rule\t (2)<br \/>\nthereof\t provides that if no ingots and billets are produced<br \/>\nfor  a continuous period of seven days, the manufacturer may<br \/>\nclaim\tabatement   by\t following  appropriate\t  procedure.<br \/>\nSub-Rule 3 thereof envisages a composition method of payment<br \/>\nof  duty.  Manufacturers of ingots and billets with  furnace<br \/>\ncapacity  of  3 tonnes have an option of paying duty of\t Rs.<br \/>\nFive  lakhs per month in two equal instalments prior to 15th<br \/>\nof  a month and by last date of that month.  Such payment is<br \/>\ntreated to be in full discharge of duty liability.  The Rule<br \/>\nspecifically  excludes\tapplication of Section\t3A(4).\t But<br \/>\nmanufacturers  opting for this composite scheme cannot claim<br \/>\nabatement.   If\t the furnace capacity is less than  or\tmore<br \/>\nthan  3\t tonnes\t payment of Rs.\t 5 lakhs can  be  varied  on<br \/>\npro-rata  basis.  The manufacturer opting for this composite<br \/>\nscheme\thas  to\t give a declaration  to\t the  Jurisdictional<br \/>\nAssistant  Commissioner as provided under the Rules.   There<br \/>\nare   similar  provisions  in\trelation  to  hot  re-rolled<br \/>\nproducts.   By\treason of the assessee having exercised\t his<br \/>\ndesire\tof  paying duty based on total furnace capacity\t the<br \/>\ndetermination  of  annual  capacity  of\t production  is\t not<br \/>\ndetermined  by the Revenue as the procedure adopted obviates<br \/>\ndetermination\tof   production.    In\t  the\tabsence\t  of<br \/>\ndetermination\tof   production\t  the\t question   of\t its<br \/>\ndetermination  on the basis of actual production as detailed<br \/>\nin Section 3A(4) of the Act does not arise.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  schemes contained in Section 3A(4) of the Act and<br \/>\nRule  96ZO(3)  or Rule 96ZP(3) of the Excise Rules  are\t two<br \/>\nalternative  procedures\t to be adopted at the option of\t the<br \/>\nassessee.   Thus  the two procedures do not clash with\teach<br \/>\nother.\t If  the  assessee  opts for  procedure\t under\tRule<br \/>\n96ZO(1)\t he may opt out of the procedure under Rule  96ZO(3)<br \/>\nfor a subsequent period and seek the determination of annual<br \/>\ncapacity  of  production.  An assessee cannot have a  hybrid<br \/>\nprocedure  of combining the procedure under Rule 96ZO(1)  to<br \/>\nwhich  Section 3A(4) of the Act is attracted.  The claim  by<br \/>\nthe respondents is a hybrid procedure of taking advantage of<br \/>\nthe  payment  of  lumpsum  on the  basis  of  total  furnace<br \/>\ncapacity  and  not  on\tthe  basis  of\tactual\tcapacity  of<br \/>\nproduction.   Such a procedure cannot be adopted at all, for<br \/>\nthe  two  procedures are alternative schemes of\t payment  of<br \/>\ntax.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  learned counsel for the respondent contended that<br \/>\nthe  Rule  96ZO(3) is contrary to Section 3A(4) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nand, therefore, should be held to be ultra vires or read the<br \/>\nrelevant  rules\t in such a manner as to allow the  procedure<br \/>\nprescribed  under  the\tprovisions of Section  3A(4)  to  be<br \/>\nfollowed.   Section  3A\t of the Act provides  for  levy\t and<br \/>\ncollection  of the tax arising under the Act in such  manner<br \/>\nand at such rate as may be prescribed by the Rules.  Section<br \/>\n3A provides special procedure in respect of the power of the<br \/>\nCentral\t Government  to charge excise duty on the  basis  of<br \/>\ncapacity  of  production in respect of notified\t goods.\t  If<br \/>\nsuch  interpretation is not accepted, it is contended,\tthat<br \/>\nthe levy of tax is in the nature of a license fee and not on<br \/>\nproduction  of\tgoods  at all.\tSchemes of  composition\t are<br \/>\navailable  in  several other enactments including the  Sales<br \/>\nTax Act and the Entertainment Tax [ See :  <a href=\"\/doc\/1763050\/\">State of Kerala &amp;<br \/>\nAnr.   vs.   Builders Association of India &amp; Ors.,<\/a> 1997\t (2)<br \/>\nSCC  183].   In\t this context, the learned counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  referred to several decisions.  However, in our<br \/>\nopinion, all these decisions either arising under the Income<br \/>\nTax  Act in relation to special mode of collection of tax or<br \/>\nexcise\tduty  on timber dealers or other enactments have  no<br \/>\nrelevance.   What  can be seen is that the charge under\t the<br \/>\nSection\t is  clearly  on  production of the  goods  but\t the<br \/>\nmeasure\t of tax is dependent on either actual production  of<br \/>\ngoods  or  on  some other basis.  The incidence of  tax\t is,<br \/>\ntherefore,  on\tthe production of goods.  It cannot be\tsaid<br \/>\nthat  collection of tax based on the annual furnace capacity<br \/>\nis  not\t relatable to the production of goods and  does\t not<br \/>\ncarry the purpose of the Act.  In holding whether a relevant<br \/>\nrule  to  be ultra vires it becomes necessary to  take\tinto<br \/>\nconsideration  the  purpose  of the enactment  as  a  whole,<br \/>\nstarting  from\tthe preamble to the last provision  thereto.<br \/>\nIf  the\t entire enactment is read as a whole  indicates\t the<br \/>\npurpose\t and  that purpose is carried out by the rules,\t the<br \/>\nsame cannot be stated to be ultra vires of the provisions of<br \/>\nthe  enactment.\t  Therefore,  it  is  made  clear  that\t the<br \/>\nmanufacturers,\tif they have availed of the procedure  under<br \/>\nRule  96ZO(3)  at their option, cannot claim the benefit  of<br \/>\ndetermination  of production capacity under Section 3A(4) of<br \/>\nthe  Act  which is specifically excluded.  We find that\t the<br \/>\nview  taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in\t Sathavahana<br \/>\nSteels\t&amp; Alloys (P) Ltd.  vs.\tGovernment of India  (supra)<br \/>\nand  the similar view expressed by the Division Bench of the<br \/>\nAllahabad  High\t Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Petition<br \/>\nNo.   1127  of\t1999  M\/s   Jalan  Castings  (P)  Ltd.\t vs.<br \/>\nCommissioner  of  Central  Excise  &amp; Ors.   disposed  of  on<br \/>\nFebruary  28,  2000 is reasonable and correct.\tWe  overrule<br \/>\nthe  view  taken  by  the Allahabad High  Court\t in  Pravesh<br \/>\nCastings (P) Ltd., Kanpur Nagar vs.  Commissioner of Central<br \/>\nExcise, Allahabad &amp; Anr.  (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  the  reasoning adopted by us and bearing  in\tmind<br \/>\nthat  in  taxation  measures  composition  schemes  are\t not<br \/>\nunknown\t and when such scheme is availed of by the  assessee<br \/>\nit  is not at all permissible for him to turn around and ask<br \/>\nfor  regular assessment, we think, there is no substance  in<br \/>\nthe contention urged on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      There  are a few peripheral submissions made on behalf<br \/>\nof  the respondents that in several cases the  Commissioners<br \/>\nhave  wrongly fixed the furnace capacity and that aspect has<br \/>\nto  be\texamined  by the Tribunal in such cases.   In  these<br \/>\ncases,\ttherefore,  we\tset  aside the orders  made  by\t the<br \/>\nTribunal  and  direct  the Tribunal to bring the  orders  in<br \/>\nconformity   with  the\tview  expressed\t  by  us  and\tpass<br \/>\nappropriate orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  allow these appeals accordingly.  However, in\t the<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the case there shall be no orders  as  to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 Bench: S.N.Phukan, S.R.Babu PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &amp; CUSTOMS Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/04\/2000 BENCH: S.N.Phukan, S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : These appeals are filed under Section [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\\\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\"},\"wordCount\":2706,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\\\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\\\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000","datePublished":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000"},"wordCount":2706,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; ... vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-21T12:31:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-venus-castings-p-ltd-on-5-april-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise &amp; &#8230; vs M\/S Venus Castings (P) Ltd on 5 April, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114288","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}