{"id":205873,"date":"2007-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-11-16T15:28:35","modified_gmt":"2018-11-16T09:58:35","slug":"the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     Dated : 01.11.2007\n                              \n                         C O R A M :\n\n        The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n                             and\n       The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN\n                              \n\n      \t\t  C.M.A. No.2081 of 2005 \n                             and \n                  C.M.P. No.10977 of 2005\n\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Central Excise\nChennai I\nNo.121\nUthamar Gandhi Road\nNungambakkam\nChennai 34.             \t\t\t\t..Appellant\n\n\n          Vs\n\n\n1. M\/s.ITC Limited\n   Packaging and Printing Limited\n   Thiruvottiyur\n   Chennai\n\n2. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal\n   South Zonal Bench\n   Shastri Bhavan Annexure\n   I Floor\n   No.26\n   Haddows Road\n   Chennai.                             \t\t..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n      Civil  Miscellaneous Appeal filed  against  the  Final\nOrder No.131 of 2005  dated 24.1.2005 passed by the Customs,\nExcise  and   Service  Tax Appellate Tribunal,  South  Zonal\nBench, Chennai.\n                              \n\n               For Appellant \t: Mr.S.Udayakumar,SCGSC\n\n               For Respondents\t: Mrs.L.Maithili\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
  (Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN,J)<\/p>\n
      This Appeal is filed against the Final Order No.131 of<\/p>\n
2005   dated  24.1.2005  made by  the  Customs,  Excise  and<\/p>\n
Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal  Bench, Chennai.<\/p>\n
      2. The question of law formulated for entertainment of<\/p>\n
the appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“1. Whether the<\/p>\n
        credit of duty on capital goods can be allowed when the respondents<\/p>\n
        have not filed statutory declarations which is a mandatory provisions<\/p>\n
        under Rule 57T(1) of CER 1944?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether credit of<\/p>\n
        duty on capital goods can be allowed when the respondents have not<\/p>\n
        intimated about the date of receipt of capital goods into the factory<\/p>\n
        which is a mandatory provisions under Rule 57T(2) of CER 1944?<\/p>\n
3. Whether the<\/p>\n
        Hon’ble Tribunal is right in holding that the Revenue has no case<\/p>\n
        that any of the substantive conditions for capital goods credit was<\/p>\n
        not fulfilled by the respondents when the respondents have violated<\/p>\n
        to sub-rules namely Rule 57T(1) and 57T(2)?”<\/p>\n
     3. Though the questions of law are framed as above, the<\/p>\n
facts of the case proceed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The  first  respondent herein being  manufacturers  of<\/p>\n
coated  boards, printed boards, printed cartons and  printed<\/p>\n
slides falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff<\/p>\n
Act,  1985,   taken  capital  goods  credit  of  a  sum   of<\/p>\n
Rs.19,92,778\/- in their RG 23C Part II Register  during  the<\/p>\n
period  July  to November 1995 in respect of  capital  goods<\/p>\n
received  by them from time to time and taken into use.  The<\/p>\n
appellant\/Department   was   of   the    view    that    the<\/p>\n
respondent\/assessee   have  not  fulfilled   the   statutory<\/p>\n
obligation  prescribed under Rule 57T of the Central  Excise<\/p>\n
Rules,  1944  by  not  filing statutory  declaration  before<\/p>\n
receipt  of  capital goods and by not giving  intimation  in<\/p>\n
respect  of  receipt  of capital goods into  their  factory.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the amount of Rs.19,92,778\/- taken as credit  was<\/p>\n
irregular.  Accordingly, the Revenue  issued  a  show  cause<\/p>\n
notice  dated 18.1.2006 calling upon the respondent assessee<\/p>\n
to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.19,92,778\/-  erroneously<\/p>\n
taken credit of should not be disallowed under Rule 57U  and<\/p>\n
as  to  why penalty should not be imposed under Rule 173Q(i)<\/p>\n
(bb).  After  due  enquiry,  the Assistant  Commissioner  of<\/p>\n
Central  Excise  by  his order dated 10.3.1998  allowed  the<\/p>\n
credit  for  a  sum  of  Rs.4,46,436\/-  and  disallowed  the<\/p>\n
remaining   amount   of   Rs.15,46,362\/-   (Rs.14,43,365   +<\/p>\n
Rs.1,02,997) under Rule 57U and imposed penalty in a sum  of<\/p>\n
RS.3 lakhs under Rule 173Q(i)(bb). Aggrieved by the order of<\/p>\n
the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent filed a statutory<\/p>\n
appeal  before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by his  order<\/p>\n
dated  16.3.2000  allowed  the credit of  Rs.1,02,997\/-  for<\/p>\n
which  statutory  declaration  was  filed  late  but  before<\/p>\n
condonable  time  limit of three months  and  confirmed  the<\/p>\n
remaining  part of the order of the Assistant  Commissioner.<\/p>\n
The  respondent carried the matter on further appeal  before<\/p>\n
the  Customs,  Excise  and Service Tax  appellate  Tribunal,<\/p>\n
which  by  its order dated 24.1.2005 set aside the order  of<\/p>\n
the  Commissioner (Appeals) impugned therein by allowing the<\/p>\n
appeal. The correctness of the same is put in issue in  this<\/p>\n
appeal  by  formulating  the  above  questions  of  law  for<\/p>\n
entertainment of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel appearing for the revenue\/appellant<\/p>\n
submitted that Rule 57T as was obtaining during the relevant<\/p>\n
time   required  the  manufacturer  to  file  a  declaration<\/p>\n
indicating  the  particulars  of  the  capital  goods,   the<\/p>\n
description of the final product manufactured in his factory<\/p>\n
and  such  other  information as the Assistant  Commissioner<\/p>\n
might require. If the manufacturer was not in a position  to<\/p>\n
make  declaration  within  the  period,  he  could  make  an<\/p>\n
application  within a period of one month  or  such  further<\/p>\n
period  as  might  be allowed by the Assistant  Commissioner<\/p>\n
within  the  maximum period of two months from the  date  of<\/p>\n
receipt   of   the  capital  goods  in  the   factory.   The<\/p>\n
manufacturer  intending to take credit of the duty  paid  on<\/p>\n
capital  goods under Rule 57Q shall intimate the particulars<\/p>\n
regarding  the full description of the capital  goods  along<\/p>\n
with  brand  name  and identification marks  and  any  other<\/p>\n
particulars as the Collector might require. But in the facts<\/p>\n
of  the  present case, the respondent manufacturer infringed<\/p>\n
the  conditions prescribed under the Rules. That  aspect  of<\/p>\n
the matter has been totally lost sight of by the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
      5.  We  heard  the  argument of  the  learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the Department\/appellant.<\/p>\n
     6. It could be seen from the order of the Tribunal that<\/p>\n
in  the instant case the capital goods credit was disallowed<\/p>\n
to  the  assessee  on  the ground that the  relevant  modvat<\/p>\n
declarations    under  Rule  57T  were  filed   beyond   the<\/p>\n
prescribed  period  of three months. The Tribunal  has  also<\/p>\n
recorded  a  finding to the effect that no other reason  has<\/p>\n
been  cited  for denial of the credit. Thus, the final  fact<\/p>\n
finding authority has recorded a finding to the effect  that<\/p>\n
the  capital goods credit was disallowed to the assessee  on<\/p>\n
the  ground that the relevant modvat declaration under  Rule<\/p>\n
57T was filed beyond the period prescribed. The Tribunal has<\/p>\n
taken  note  of  the  amendment notification  No.7  of  1999<\/p>\n
C.E.(N.T) dated 9.2.1999, which amended Rules providing that<\/p>\n
Modvat credit should not be disallowed for procedural lapses<\/p>\n
like  declaration  having  not  been  filed  in  time,   all<\/p>\n
particulars  having not been stated in duty paying  document<\/p>\n
etc., held in favour of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  The Notification No.7\/99 C.E. (N.T) dated 9.2.1999<\/p>\n
reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “In  exercise  of  the powers  conferred  by<\/p>\n
     Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944  (1  of<\/p>\n
     1944),  the  Central Government hereby  makes  the<\/p>\n
     following  rules  further  to  amend  the  Central<\/p>\n
     Excise Rules, 1944, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     1.    (1)  These rules may be called  the  Central<\/p>\n
     Excise (3rd Amendment Rules, 1944.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          (2) They shall come into force on the date of<\/p>\n
     their publication in the Official Gazette.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     2. In the Central Excise Rules, 1944, –<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (a)  in  rule 57G, after sub-rule (10),  the<\/p>\n
     following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely, –<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           “(11) Credit under sub-rule (2) shall not be<\/p>\n
     denied on the grounds that –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (i)  any of the documents, mentioned in sub-<\/p>\n
     rule  (3)  does  not contain all  the  particulars<\/p>\n
     required  to  be  contained  therein  under  these<\/p>\n
     rules,  if  such  document  contains  details   of<\/p>\n
     payment   of  duty,  description  of  the   goods,<\/p>\n
     assessable value, name and address of the  factory<\/p>\n
     or warehouse;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
          (ii) the declaration filed under sub-rule (1)<\/p>\n
     does  not contain all the details required  to  be<\/p>\n
     contained  therein  or the manufacturer  fails  to<\/p>\n
     comply  with  any  other requirements  under  sub-<\/p>\n
     rule(1).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     Provided   that  the  Assistant  Commissioner   of<\/p>\n
     Central   Excise  having  jurisdiction  over   the<\/p>\n
     factory  of manufacturer intending to take  credit<\/p>\n
     is  satisfied that duty due on the inputs has been<\/p>\n
     paid  and such inputs have actually been  used  or<\/p>\n
     are  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  final<\/p>\n
     products,  and  such Assistant Commissioner  shall<\/p>\n
     record  the reasons for not denying the credit  so<\/p>\n
     in each case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
     (b)   in  rule  57T,  after  sub-rule  (12),   the<\/p>\n
     following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:<\/p>\n
     (13) Credit under sub-rule (6) shall not be denied<\/p>\n
     on the grounds that –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     (i)  any of the documents specified under sub-rule<\/p>\n
     (3)   of  rule  57G  does  not  contain  all   the<\/p>\n
     particulars required to be contained therein under<\/p>\n
     these rules, if such document contains details  of<\/p>\n
     payment of duty, description of the capital goods,<\/p>\n
     assessable value, name and address of the  factory<\/p>\n
     or warehouse;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     (ii) the declaration filed under sub-rule (1) does<\/p>\n
     not  contain  all  the  details  required  to   be<\/p>\n
     contained  therein  or the manufacturer  fails  to<\/p>\n
     comply    with   any   other   requirements  under <\/p>\n
     sub-rule (1):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
     Provided   that  the  Assistant  Commissioner   of<\/p>\n
     Central   Excise  having  jurisdiction  over   the<\/p>\n
     factory  of  the  manufacturer intending  to  take<\/p>\n
     credit is satisfied that the duty due on the  paid<\/p>\n
     and such capital goods have actually been used  or<\/p>\n
     are  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  final<\/p>\n
     products,  and  such Assistant Commissioner  shall<\/p>\n
     record  the reasons for not denying the credit  so<\/p>\n
     in each case.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The  said  notification was followed by Guidelines  in<\/p>\n
Circular  No.441\/7\/99- CX  dated 23.2.1999  which  reads  as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “Modvat rules  – Guidelines to be followed in<\/p>\n
    respect of Notification NO.7\/99-C.E. (N.T.),  dated<\/p>\n
    9-2-1999 or amendment to Rule 57G and 57T<\/p>\n
           I  am  directed  to  refer  to  Notification<\/p>\n
    NO.7\/99-C.E.  (N.T.),  dated  9-2-1999  issued   to<\/p>\n
    amend Modvat Rules. The aforesaid notification  has<\/p>\n
    been  issued  to insert sub-rule (11) in  Rule  57G<\/p>\n
    and  sub-rule  (13)  in Rule  57T  of  the  Central<\/p>\n
    Excise  Rules, 1944 so as to empower the  Assistant<\/p>\n
    Commissioner  of Central Excise having jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    over  the  factory  of  the manufacturer  to  allow<\/p>\n
    credit   of  duty  paid  on  inputs\/capital   goods<\/p>\n
    ignoring  minor  procedural lapses  in  filing  the<\/p>\n
    declaration  or  in the invoice\/document  based  on<\/p>\n
    which   credit   is  to  be  taken.  However,   the<\/p>\n
    Assistant    Commissioner   should   ensure    that<\/p>\n
    inputs\/capital  goods have suffered  duty  and  are<\/p>\n
    being  used\/are  to  be  used  in  the  process  of<\/p>\n
    manufacture.  The  Assistant Commissioner  is  also<\/p>\n
    required  to  record  the  reasons  in  file    for<\/p>\n
    allowing Modvat credit in each case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          2. The Assistant Commissioner, before issuing<\/p>\n
    Show  Cause  Notice for wrong availment  of  Modvat<\/p>\n
    Credit  by the assessee on any procedural  grounds,<\/p>\n
    shall  conduct enquiries with regard to  duty  paid<\/p>\n
    nature  of  the goods at the suppliers and,  ensure<\/p>\n
    that  necessary  information as  mentioned  in  the<\/p>\n
    Notification  are  available  on  the  invoice  and<\/p>\n
    satisfies himself whether the goods have been  used<\/p>\n
    or  are intended to be used as contemplated in  the<\/p>\n
    Modvat  Rules.   In  case  the  assessee’s  invoice<\/p>\n
    contains  the  details  viz.,  description  of  the<\/p>\n
    goods,  assessable value, name and address  of  the<\/p>\n
    factory  or  warehouse where the goods  are  to  be<\/p>\n
    received,   and  if  the  assessee  has   filed   a<\/p>\n
    declaration  as contemplated in the  Modvat  rules,<\/p>\n
    the   Assistant  Commissioner  having  jurisdiction<\/p>\n
    over the factory would allow the credit of duty  so<\/p>\n
    paid after making enquiries as above.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          3.  It should hereafter be ensured that  Show<\/p>\n
    Cause  Notices are not issued for procedural lapses<\/p>\n
    as  mentioned  in the Notification  without  making<\/p>\n
    proper    enquiries.   Wherever    the    Assistant<\/p>\n
    Commissioner,   after  making   enquiry   due,   is<\/p>\n
    satisfied  that  the  Modvat credit  taken  by  the<\/p>\n
    assessee is incorrect, adjudication proceedings  in<\/p>\n
    the  normal  course  should be initiated.  Efforts,<\/p>\n
    however,  should be directed towards  reduction  of<\/p>\n
    litigation.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.  From the above, it is clear that the modvat credit<\/p>\n
should  not  be  disallowed  for procedural lapses  and  the<\/p>\n
circular  further instructed the authorities that the  minor<\/p>\n
procedural lapses in the matter of filing modvat declaration<\/p>\n
should  be  ignored while considering the  modvat  claim  in<\/p>\n
respect  of  capital  goods  in  pending  cases,  where  the<\/p>\n
substantive  conditions of modvat credit were  fulfilled  to<\/p>\n
the satisfaction of the original authority.<\/p>\n
      9.  Having regard to the above said amendment  brought<\/p>\n
out in notification No.7\/99-CE (N.T.) dated 9.2.1999 and the<\/p>\n
subsequent  circular  No.441\/7\/99-CX  dated  23.2.1999   and<\/p>\n
taking  note of the fact that the instant case is  not  even<\/p>\n
one  of  non-filing of the modvat declaration,  but  one  of<\/p>\n
belated  filing  of  such declaration, as  per  the  finding<\/p>\n
recorded  by  the  Tribunal, we are of the  view   that  the<\/p>\n
amendment notification dated 9.2.1999 and the circular dated<\/p>\n
23.2.1999  followed by it, would squarely covers  the  issue<\/p>\n
and  the  order of the Tribunal is in accordance  with   the<\/p>\n
amendment  notification No.7\/99-C.E. (N.T.)  dated  9.2.1999<\/p>\n
and the Circular No.441\/7\/99 dated 23.2.1999. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the connected C.M.P. is also dismissed.<\/p>\n
usk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
\n   South Zonal Bench
\n   Shastri Bhawan Annexe
\n   1 Floor
\n   No.26
\n   Hadddows Road
\n   Chennai 6.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
\n   Chennai 600 034.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Asst.Commissioner of Central Excise
\n   D Division
\n   Chennai Commissionerate
\n   Chennai 34.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01.11.2007 C O R A M : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN and The Honourable Mrs.Justice CHITRA VENKATARAMAN C.M.A. No.2081 of 2005 and C.M.P. No.10977 of 2005 The Commissioner of […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-16T09:58:35+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\\\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T09:58:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1920,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\\\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-16T09:58:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\\\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-16T09:58:35+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T09:58:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007"},"wordCount":1920,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007","name":"The Commissioner Of Central ... vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-16T09:58:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-central-vs-ms-itc-limited-on-1-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Central … vs M\/S.Itc Limited on 1 November, 2007"}]},{"@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\/205873","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=205873"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205873\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}