{"id":29979,"date":"2009-10-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-11-16T01:05:53","modified_gmt":"2018-11-15T19:35:53","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009<\/div>\n
CEA No.47 of 2007                     1\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                        CHANDIGARH.\n\n                         CEA No.47 of 2007\n                         Date of decision .10.2009\n\n\nCommissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana      ... appellant\n\n                         Versus\n\nM\/s Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. and another ... Respondents.\n\nCORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR\n             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH\n\nPresent:     Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Government of\n             India (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant\n             None for the assessee- respondent.\n\n\n  1.To be referred to the Reporter or not ?\n   2.Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?\n\nM.M.KUMAR, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The instant appeal was disposed of on 14.9.2007 with the<\/p>\n
observation that if the amount of duty has been deposited before issuance of<\/p>\n
show cause notice to the dealer- respondent then no penalty under Section<\/p>\n
11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for brevity ‘the Act’) was imposable.<\/p>\n
The Division Bench did not admit the appeal and proceeded to dismiss the<\/p>\n
same on the basis of the aforesaid principle settled in various judgements as<\/p>\n
is evident from the following para:\n<\/p>\n
             ”      After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and<\/p>\n
             perusing the record we find that the matter is not res integra in<\/p>\n
             as much as, we have already decided similar appeals against the<\/p>\n
             revenue and in favour of the assessee in the cases of<\/p>\n
             Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. M\/s Omkar Steel<\/p>\n
             Tubes (P)Ltd. (CEA No.5 of<\/a> 2007, decided on 28.8.2007);
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
            Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. M\/s Crop<\/p>\n
            Chemical India Ltd. and another (CEA No.6 of 2007, decided<\/p>\n
            on 31.8.2007); Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III v.<\/p>\n
            M\/s Sun Vacuum Former Pvt. Ltd. (CEA No.56 of 2007,<\/p>\n
            decided on 7.9.2007); and Commissioner of Central Excise,<\/p>\n
            Chandigarh v. M\/s Diamond Steel Rolling Mills and<\/a> another<\/p>\n
            (CEA No.25 of 2007, decided on 7.9.2007). “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The revenue carried an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court being<\/p>\n
C.A.No.1901 of 2008. The Hon’ble Supreme Court alongwith a number of<\/p>\n
other appeals set aside the order dated 14.9.2007 passed by this Court<\/p>\n
dismissing the appeal and remitted the matter back to this Court for disposal<\/p>\n
in the light of the judgement rendered in the case of Union of India v.<\/p>\n
Dharmendra Textile Processors<\/a> 2008(231)ELT 3 (SC). Accordingly we<\/p>\n
proceed to decide the substantive question of law claimed by the revenue<\/p>\n
and the other one arising as per the directions of Hon’ble the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
            ” (A) Whether equal penalty under Section 11 AC is not<\/p>\n
            imposable on the assessee merely on the ground that the duty<\/p>\n
            has been deposited before the issue of show cause notice ?<\/p>\n
            (B) Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Section<\/p>\n
            11 AC of the Act would be applicable so as to attract the<\/p>\n
            provisions of interest and penalty under Section 11 AC as well<\/p>\n
            as 11 AB of the Act. ?” .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Few facts may be noticed before we answer the aforesaid questions of<\/p>\n
law. The dealer M\/s Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd., Bagrian Road, Dhuri are<\/p>\n
holding Central Excise Registration and are engaged in the manufacture of
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
PVC Pipes falling under sub heading No. 39172390 of the First Schedule to<\/p>\n
the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Central Excise Preventive Staff<\/p>\n
visited the factory premises of the dealer on 30.3.2005 and detected<\/p>\n
shortage of 7.601 MT. of PVC pipes involving central excise duty\/ credit of<\/p>\n
Rs. 55,821\/-. The Director of the unit Shri Sanjeev Kumar in his signed<\/p>\n
statement admitted the shortage by stating the reason of mis-reporting by<\/p>\n
illiterate labour. The amount of duty payable on the goods found short was<\/p>\n
deposited by the dealer. For confirmation of duty under Section 11 A of the<\/p>\n
Act read with Rule 74 of the Cenvate Credit Rules, 2004 (for brevity ‘the<\/p>\n
2004 Rules’) a show cause notice was issued to the dealer with a proposal<\/p>\n
for imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002<\/p>\n
(for brevity ‘the Rules’) read with Rule 15 of the 2004 Rules and Section 11<\/p>\n
AC of the Act. A separate show cause notice was issued to Shri Sanjeev<\/p>\n
Kumar, the Director of the unit for imposition of personal penalty on him<\/p>\n
under Rule 26 of the Rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act. The matter<\/p>\n
was decided against the dealer vide order-in-original dated 30.11.2005. As a<\/p>\n
consequence the demand of Rs. 55,821\/- was confirmed under Section 11 A<\/p>\n
of the Act. The dealer had deposited the amount which stood appropriated<\/p>\n
to the revenue. However, an equal amount of penalty was imposed under<\/p>\n
Section 11 AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the Rules and Rule 15 of the<\/p>\n
2004 Rules. A sum of Rs. 10,000\/- as personal penalty was also imposed<\/p>\n
(P.1).\n<\/p>\n
            The dealer filed an appeal urging various grounds. The<\/p>\n
appellate authority by placing reliance on a judgement of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
rendered in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigmal Ltd v. CCE 2003(161)ELT<\/p>\n
285 (Tri) which is claimed to be upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
reported in 2004(163)ELT A.53 opined that once the dealer had deposited<\/p>\n
the amount before the issuance of show cause notice no interest or penalty<\/p>\n
was imposable. The appellate authority also placed reliance on another<\/p>\n
decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE v.<\/p>\n
Machino Montell (P)Ltd. 2004(62) RLT-709.\n<\/p>\n
             Feeling aggrieved by the view taken by the appellate authority<\/p>\n
in its order dated 22.2.2006 (P.2), the revenue approached the Tribunal by<\/p>\n
filing an appeal. The Tribunal also affirmed the view taken by the appellate<\/p>\n
authority holding that no substantial question would arise in view of the<\/p>\n
settled position of law including the one rendered by the Bombay High<\/p>\n
Court in the case of CCE 1 v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. 2005(190) ELT 11<\/p>\n
(Bom.) The principle of law laid down in these judgements is that if the<\/p>\n
amount of duty has been deposited before issuance of show cause notice<\/p>\n
then no interest or penalty would be imposable.\n<\/p>\n
            The Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the view taken by the<\/p>\n
Division Bench of this Court and has remitted the matter to this Court for<\/p>\n
decision afresh in the light of   the judgement in Dharmendra Textile<\/p>\n
Processors’s case (supra). However, the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors’s case (supra) has been explained<\/p>\n
and reconsidered in a later judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills<\/a> 2009(238) ELT 3<\/p>\n
(SC). While explaining the view taken in Dharmendra Textile Processors’s<\/p>\n
case (supra) Hon’ble the Supreme Court has now clarified that penalty<\/p>\n
under Section 11AC of the Act is punishment for an act of deliberate<\/p>\n
deception by the assessee with an intent to evade duty by adopting any of<\/p>\n
the means mentioned in the Section. Therefore Dharmendra Textile
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
Processors case (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that in every<\/p>\n
case of non payment or short payment of duty the penalty clause would<\/p>\n
automatically get attracted and that the authority had no discretion in the<\/p>\n
matter. In para 20 of the judgement rendered in the case of Rajasthan<\/p>\n
Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) it has been observed that the aforesaid<\/p>\n
judgement cannot be read to mean that penalty provision under Section 11<\/p>\n
AC of the Act would be attracted automatically in every case of non<\/p>\n
payment\/ short payment of duty. It follows that the judgement in<\/p>\n
Dharmendra Textile Processors’s case (supra) is not        an authority that<\/p>\n
irrespective of the fulfillment of basic ingredients of Section 11 AC of the<\/p>\n
Act the penalty get attracted for non payment or short payment of duty. In<\/p>\n
paras 18 and 19 of the judgement in Rajasthjan spinning and Weaving<\/p>\n
Mills case (supra), it has been observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
            “18.    One can not fail to notice that both the proviso to sub<\/p>\n
            section 1 of    section 11A and section 11AC use the same<\/p>\n
            expressions: “….by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful<\/p>\n
            mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any<\/p>\n
            of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder<\/p>\n
            with intent to evade payment of duty,…”. In other words the<\/p>\n
            conditions that would extend the normal period of one year to<\/p>\n
            five years would also attract the imposition of penalty. It,<\/p>\n
            therefore, follows that if the notice under section 11A (1) states<\/p>\n
            that the escaped duty was the result of any conscious and<\/p>\n
            deliberate wrong doing and in the order passed under section<\/p>\n
            11A (2) there is a legally tenable finding to that effect then the<\/p>\n
            provision of    section 11AC would also get attracted. The
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
            converse of this, equally true, is that in the absence of such an<\/p>\n
            allegation in the notice the period for which the escaped duty<\/p>\n
            may be reclaimed would be confined to one year and in the<\/p>\n
            absence of such a finding in the order passed under section 11A<\/p>\n
            (2) there would be no application of the penalty provision in<\/p>\n
            section 11AC of the Act. On behalf of the assessees it was also<\/p>\n
            submitted that sections 11A and 11AC not only operate in<\/p>\n
            different fields but the two provisions are also separated by<\/p>\n
            time. The penalty provision of section 11AC would come into<\/p>\n
            play only after an order is passed under section 11A(2) with the<\/p>\n
            finding that the escaped duty was the result of deception by the<\/p>\n
            assessee by adopting a means as indicated in section 11AC.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            19. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that penalty under<\/p>\n
            section 11AC, as the word suggests, is punishment for an act of<\/p>\n
            deliberate deception by the assessee with the intent to evade<\/p>\n
            duty by adopting any of the means mentioned in the section.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Another ‘strong’ reason discovered in support of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
proposition set out by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and<\/p>\n
Weaving Mills case (supra) is that such an interpretation was not even<\/p>\n
sought by the revenue in Dharmendra Textile Processors’ case (supra).<\/p>\n
            The Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills<\/p>\n
case (supra) has now clarified and laid down that merely because duty has<\/p>\n
been paid before issuance of show cause notice would not result in non<\/p>\n
application of Section 11 AC or 11 AB of the Act. The view of their<\/p>\n
Lordship is discernible from para 15 of the judgement in the case of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra). The aforesaid view reads
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
thus:\n<\/p>\n
               ” 15. Sub-section 2B of section 11A provides that in case the<\/p>\n
               person in default makes payment of the escaped amount of duty<\/p>\n
               before the service of notice then the Revenue will not give him<\/p>\n
               the notice under sub section 1. This, perhaps, is the basis of the<\/p>\n
               common though erroneous view that no penalty would be<\/p>\n
               leviable if the escaped amount of duty is paid before the service<\/p>\n
               of notice. It, however, overlooks the two explanations<\/p>\n
               qualifying the main provision. Explanation 1 makes it clear that<\/p>\n
               the payment would, nevertheless, be subject to imposition of<\/p>\n
               interest under section 11AB. Explanation 2 makes it further<\/p>\n
               clear that in case the escape of duty is intentional and by reason<\/p>\n
               of deception the main provision of sub section 2B will have no<\/p>\n
               application.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        It is thus obvious that there is no rule of law applicable in blanket<\/p>\n
manner to the effect that if the amount of duty due has been paid before the<\/p>\n
issuance of show cause notice then the provision concerning interest or<\/p>\n
penalty would not be applicable. It has been clarified by the Explanations I<\/p>\n
and II that non payment of duty amount would be subject to imposition of<\/p>\n
interest under Section 11 AB of the Act and in case the non payment of<\/p>\n
duty\/ short payment of duty is found to be intentional actuated by the reason<\/p>\n
of deception then sub section 2B of Section 11 of the Act would have no<\/p>\n
application.\n<\/p>\n
               The aforesaid principles are required to be applied to the facts<\/p>\n
of the present case. The finding recorded by the Assessing Authority in the<\/p>\n
order-in-original no where states that there was any suppression of facts or
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
mis-statement or fraud with an intention to evade payment of duty. On the<\/p>\n
contrary the defence of the dealer has been noticed which stated that<\/p>\n
clandestine removal of 7.601 MT. of PVC pipes could not be proved by the<\/p>\n
revenue although the shortage was conceded. Even for shortage stated in the<\/p>\n
defence by the dealer was the mis-reporting by the labour which was<\/p>\n
illiterate. The other submission made by the dealer was that the weighment<\/p>\n
of the stock material was done on the basis of eye estimate because to<\/p>\n
weigh such a huge quantity of 7.601 MT. a number of days were required<\/p>\n
to load the trucks and then to take them to weighment bridge for loading<\/p>\n
and unloading the same to weigh the material a number of times. However,<\/p>\n
the Assessing Authority has concluded that the dealer was fully satisfied<\/p>\n
with the manner of verification of stock and he had put his signatures on the<\/p>\n
stock statement as taken of its correctness. He admitted his lapse and<\/p>\n
debited the duty.\n<\/p>\n
            On further appeal before the appellate authority the aforesaid<\/p>\n
findings have not been tinkered with and the appellate authority allowed the<\/p>\n
appeal on the basis of various judgements laying down the principle that if<\/p>\n
the amount of duty is deposited before the issuance of a show cause notice ,<\/p>\n
no penalty or interest under Section 11 AC and Section 11AB of the Act<\/p>\n
was imposable. The findings recorded by the Assessing Authority are<\/p>\n
deemed to have been affirmed. The position is the same with regard to the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
            In the light of the absence of findings of clandestine removal of<\/p>\n
goods or any fraud, mis-representation, suppression of facts with the<\/p>\n
intention to evade duty, Section 11 AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of the<\/p>\n
Rules would not get attracted as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
\n CEA No.47 of 2007                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills’s case (supra)<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, the question of law at ‘A’ is answered in<\/p>\n
favour of the revenue. It is held that Section 11 AC of the Act would be<\/p>\n
attracted and the amount of penalty equivalent to the amount of duty<\/p>\n
becomes imposable.      There is no discretion vested in the assessing<\/p>\n
authority, appellate authority or the Tribunal to reduce the penal amount<\/p>\n
except in the circumstances contemplated by various provisos to Section 11<\/p>\n
AC of the Act. Having answered the aforesaid question in favour of the<\/p>\n
Revenue, the other question whether Section 11 AC of the Act is attracted<\/p>\n
to the facts of the present case has to be answered against the Revenue and<\/p>\n
in favour of the dealer. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                            (M.M.Kumar)\n                                              Judge\n\n\n\n                                            (Jaswant Singh)\n .10.2009                                      Judge\n\nokg\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009 CEA No.47 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CEA No.47 of 2007 Date of decision .10.2009 Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana … appellant Versus M\/s Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. and another […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\" \/>\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 vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-15T19:35:53+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=\"12 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-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\\\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T19:35:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2360,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\\\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-15T19:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\\\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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 vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - 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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-15T19:35:53+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T19:35:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009"},"wordCount":2360,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And ... on 5 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-15T19:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-supreme-polytubes-pltd-and-on-5-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S Supreme Polytubes (P)Ltd. And … on 5 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/29979","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=29979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}