{"id":42421,"date":"2005-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005"},"modified":"2017-03-30T16:53:43","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T11:23:43","slug":"commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 21\/03\/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice    \nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA     \n\nR.C.P.No. 8 of 2003\n\nCommissioner of Central Excise, \nChennai I Commissionerate, \nChennai  34.                            ::: Applicant\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s.ITC Ltd.,\nThiruvottiyur,\nChennai  19.                            ::: Respondent\n\n                Petition filed under Section 35 H (1) of  the  Central  Excise\nAct,  19  44  against the final order No.522\/02 dated 30.4.2002 on the file of\nCEGAT, South Zone Bench, Chennai.   \n\n!For Applicant :::  Mr.K.Veeragahavan\n                SCGSC\n\n^For Respondent :::  Ms.  L.  Mythili\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p>THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE         <\/p>\n<p>        This is a reference application on behalf of the revenue under Section<br \/>\n35 H (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by  which  the  following  questions<br \/>\nhave been sought to be referred to us for our opinion.\n<\/p>\n<p>        1.  Is the Honble Tribunal right in holding that the payment of duty<br \/>\nvide PLA No.580 dated 27.10.92 has not been paid voluntarily?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Can the letter OC.No.1124\/97 dated 02.09.92 of the  Superintendent<br \/>\nof  Central  Excise  asking the assesses to reverse an amount of Rs.5,98,000\/-<br \/>\nbeing  irregular  Modvat  credit  availed,  and   other   correspondences   in<br \/>\ncontinuation,  be  considered  to  have raised a dispute since it is not a SCN<br \/>\nissued under Section 11 A?  Can the Action of the assessee debiting  the  said<br \/>\namount  vide  PLA  No.580  dated  27.10.92 be considered payment under protest<br \/>\nsince no letter filed on that  date  giving  any  grounds  for  payment  under<br \/>\nprotest  and  subsequently also filed no representation for payment made under<br \/>\nprotest as per sub-rule 5 of Rule 233B?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.Can the letter of protest dated 31.10.92 filed by the  assessee  can<br \/>\nhave the retrospective effect of filing protest under Rule 233B?  <\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard the learned counsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  facts  of  the case have been given in the judgment of CEGAT<br \/>\ndated 26.04.2002, by which the CEGAT set aside the order of  the  Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals), who  had rejected the assesses claim for refund.  The CEGAT by its<br \/>\norder directed that the refund be given to the assessee, unless the  duty  has<br \/>\nbeen passed on to the consumer.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  assessee  is engaged interalia in the manufacture of Printed<br \/>\nCartons at its factory at Thiruvottiyur, Chennai.  It avails modvat credit  on<br \/>\nvarious inputs  used  in  the  manufacture  of  printed  cartons.  Some of the<br \/>\nprinted cartons are exported without payment of duty under Rule 191BB  of  the<br \/>\nCentral Excise  Rules, 1944.  The revenue was of the opinion that the assessee<br \/>\nwas not entitled to modvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of printed<br \/>\ncartons, which were removed without payment of duty  under  Rule  191BB.    On<br \/>\nrepeated  request of the department, the assessee expunged the credit so taken<br \/>\non 27.10.92, even though it contended that the credit availed  by  it  was  in<br \/>\naccordance with  law.    Within  three days thereafter, i.e., on 30.10.92, the<br \/>\nassessee intimated the department that this payment was made under  protest.<br \/>\nSubsequently,  the department took a view that the inputs used by the assessee<br \/>\nfor manufacture of goods cleared under Rule 191 BB for exports  were  entitled<br \/>\nto modvat  credit.    Accordingly,  the  assessee  filed  a  refund  claim for<br \/>\nRs.5,98,944\/- on 25.7.95, which had been expunged on  27.10.92.    The  refund<br \/>\nclaim  was  rejected on the ground that the same was time barred under Section<br \/>\n11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as it  stood  at  the<br \/>\nrelevant  time,  provided  for  a  period of limitation of 6 months for filing<br \/>\nrefund claims.  However, the proviso to Section 11B (1) states that the  above<br \/>\nlimitation shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The  stand  taken  by  the Department was that since the assessee<br \/>\nexpunged the credit on 27.10.92 without any protest on that date,  the  refund<br \/>\nclaim  made  by  it was barred by limitation and the proviso to Section 11B(1)<br \/>\ndoes not apply.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The Tribunal reversed the judgment of the Commissioner  (Appeals),<br \/>\nand  held  that  the payment made by the assessee was under protest, and hence<br \/>\nthere was no limitation to the claim for refund.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The Tribunal on a consideration of the  facts  observed  that  the<br \/>\nquestion whether  the  payment  vide  PLA  No.    580 dated 27.10.92 was under<br \/>\nprotest or not has to be determined after taking into accounts all  the  facts<br \/>\nand circumstances.   From the records it appeared that the amount had not been<br \/>\npaid voluntarily, but only after several correspondences between the  assessee<br \/>\nand  the  revenue in which the assessee had been urging that they are entitled<br \/>\nto the benefit of the notification No.33\/90 (NT),  and  that  they  were  also<br \/>\nentitled to  modvat  credit  against their despatches.  The Tribunal had noted<br \/>\nthat in similar circumstances, in the case of Sree Baidyanath  Ayurved  Bhavan<br \/>\nLtd.  v.   CCE, 1990 (48) ZELT 606), it was held that the payment in that case<br \/>\nwas made under protest, and this verdict was also  confirmed  by  the  Supreme<br \/>\nCourt.   Similarly  in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1341419\/\">Executive  Engineer, Workshop Division, Madhya Pradesh<br \/>\nElectricity Board v.  C.C.E, Raipur,<\/a> 1997 (95)  ELT  445,  the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nobserved  that  the earlier letter of protest for taking out the licence could<br \/>\nbe considered as a protest for payment of duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Mr.K.Veeraraghavan, learned  senior  Central  Government  Standing<br \/>\nCounsel  appearing  for  the  Department,  relies on paragraphs 93 &amp; 94 of the<br \/>\njudgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1065691\/\">Mafatlal Industries<br \/>\nLimited v.  Union of India,<\/a> 1997 5 SCC  537  .    We  have  carefully  perused<br \/>\nparagraph-94 of the judgment, and in our opinion does not help the case of the<br \/>\nDepartment.  The observation in the said paragraph any person paying the duty<br \/>\nunder  protest  has  to  follow the procedure prescribed by the rule does not<br \/>\nmean that Rule 233-B could  be  construed  in  a  narrow,  pedantic  or  hyper<br \/>\ntechnical manner.   In our opinion Rule 233-B, as interpreted by the decisions<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court referred to above, only mean that substantively there has<br \/>\nto be a protest in writing.  In the present case, the CEGAT has  admitted  the<br \/>\ncorrespondences  between the assessee and the revenue, and in our opinion that<br \/>\nis the substantive protest in writing.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  On considering all the circumstances, the  CEGAT  held  that  the<br \/>\npayment  of  duty  in  the present case in PLA No.580 dated 27.10.92 was under<br \/>\nprotest.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  As regards the plea of unjust enrichment, the  Tribunal  observed<br \/>\nthat  if  the  assessee could show that the duty had not been passed on to the<br \/>\nconsumer in this case, it would be entitled to refund.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  We agree with the view taken by the Tribunal.  Whether  duty  has<br \/>\nbeen paid under protest or not is basically a question of fact, and this Court<br \/>\nin  a reference cannot ordinarily interfere with findings of fact, unless they<br \/>\nare based on no evidence or perverse.  In our opinion,  the  findings  of  the<br \/>\nTribunal cannot be said to be based on no evidence or to be perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.  Mr.   K.Veeraraghavan, learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the Department has relied on Rule 233-B of  the  Central  Excise<br \/>\nRules, which states:  &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> 233-B.  Procedure to be followed in cases where duty is paid under protest:-<br \/>\n(1)Where an assessee desires to pay duty under protest he shall deliver to the<br \/>\nproper  officer  a  letter  to this effect and give grounds for payment of the<br \/>\nduty under protest.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)On  receipt  of  the  said  letter,  the  proper  officer  shall  give   an<br \/>\nacknowledgment to it.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)The  acknowledgment  so  given shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule<br \/>\n(4), be the proof that the assessee has paid the duty under protest  from  the<br \/>\nday on which the letter of protest was delivered to the proper officer<\/p>\n<p>        14.  In our opinion Rule 233B cannot control the full  effect  of  the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 11B(1).  A rule made under the Act cannot limit a provision<br \/>\nin the  Act itself.  It is well settled that a rule made under an Act will not<br \/>\nbe valid if it conflicts with or is in derogation to a section in the Act vide<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/173865\/\">(C.I.T v.  S.  Chinappa Mudaliar, AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 1068) .  Hence a rule should not<br \/>\nbe construed in a manner that it conflicts with a Section of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.   The Supreme Court has been consistently taking the view that the<br \/>\nprocedure under Rule 233B should not be treated in an over  technical  manner.<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/756954\/\">In India Cements Ltd.   v.  Collector of Central Excise,<\/a> 1989 (41) E.L.T.  358<br \/>\n(SC), the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n<p> A perusal of the letter dated June 11, 1974 clearly shows that all  possible<br \/>\ncontentions  which  could  be  raised against the levy of duty on the value of<br \/>\npacking material were raised.  If this could not be said to be a  protest  one<br \/>\nfails to  understand  what else it could be.  It does not require much time to<br \/>\nanalyse the contents of the letter.  An ordinary  reading  with  common  sense<br \/>\nwill  reveal  to  anybody  that  the appellant was not accepting the liability<br \/>\nwithout protest.  We have no hesitation to holding that the letter was in  the<br \/>\nnature of  protest.   That being the position, the question of limitation does<br \/>\nnot arise for refund of the duty.<\/p>\n<p>        16.  In the present case, the  Tribunal  has  found  that  there  were<br \/>\nseveral  correspondences  between  the  assessee and the revenue, in which the<br \/>\nassessee had been urging that they are entitled to the benefit of notification<br \/>\nNo.33\/90 (NT), and that they are also entitled to modvat credit against  their<br \/>\ndespatches.   Hence,  the  facts of the decision of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/756954\/\">India<br \/>\nCements Ltd.  v.  Collector of Central Excise<\/a> (supra) are similar to the facts<br \/>\nof the present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1084851\/\">In Indian Pistons Limited v.  Collector of Central  Excise,<\/a>  1990<br \/>\n(46) E.L.T.    3 (SC) (vide paragraph-10) the Supreme Court observed that Rule<br \/>\n233B of the Central Excise Rules does not prescribe  any  particular  form  of<br \/>\nprotest.\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1341419\/\">In  Ex.Engr.,  Workshop  Divn., M.P.Electricity Board v.  C.C.E.,<br \/>\nRaipur<\/a> (supra) the facts were that the Inspector of  Central  Excise  wrote  a<br \/>\nletter  to  the Divisional Engineer, Central Workshop of the Electricity Board<br \/>\nstating that since the factory of the  Electricity  Board  had  not  yet  been<br \/>\nlicensed  under  the  Central Excise Act and the Rules to manufacture the said<br \/>\ngoods the Divisional Engineer at the Central Workshop was requested to  supply<br \/>\nthe particulars in respect of the goods manufactured in the factory.  The said<br \/>\ndetails  was  sought  in order to enable the Excise authorities to recover the<br \/>\nexcise duty on the goods that were being manufactured in the Central  Workshop<br \/>\nwhich according  to  him  were liable for payment of excise duty.  In reply to<br \/>\nthe said letter, the Divisional Engineer,  Central  Workshop,  in  his  letter<br \/>\ndated  30.11.1975  took  the  stand  that  the  Central Workshop at Bhilai was<br \/>\nundertaking the fabrication of transmission line towers  and  the  sub-station<br \/>\nstructures  and Line Hardware materials in connection with the power supply in<br \/>\nthe State of Madhya Pradesh and that the  provisions  of  the  Central  Excise<br \/>\nRules  regarding  obtaining  licence  and  payment  of  excise duty may not be<br \/>\napplicable to the Central  Workshop.    On  these  facts,  the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nobserved:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  A  narrow  interpretation of the said letter would give the impression that<br \/>\nthe Divisional Engineer was only  lodging  his  protest  against  obtaining  a<br \/>\nlicence.   But,  in  our opinion, the said letter has to be read as a whole in<br \/>\nthe context in which the requirement for obtaining licence was being insisted,<br \/>\nnamely, that the goods manufactured at the Central Workshop were  leviable  to<br \/>\nexcise  duty  under  T.I.68,  which  liability  was disputed by the Divisional<br \/>\nEngineer.  The letter of the Divisional Engineer dated November 30, 1975 must,<br \/>\ntherefore, be construed to mean that protest was lodged  in  the  said  letter<br \/>\nboth  against obtaining the licence as well as against liability to payment of<br \/>\nexcise duty.  In these circumstances, we are unable to agree with the Tribunal<br \/>\nthat payment of duty was not made under protest.  On that view of  the  matter<br \/>\nthe  impugned  judgment  of  the  Tribunal  cannot be upheld and has to be set<br \/>\naside.<\/p>\n<p>        19.  Thus, it is well settled that the meaning  of  the  words  under<br \/>\nprotest must  not  be taken in a narrow and pedantic manner.  An overall view<br \/>\nof the matter has to be taken, and hence  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the<br \/>\nTribunal  has  taken a correct view considering the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        20.  In view of the  above,  we  find  no  merits  in  this  reference<br \/>\npetition and it is accordingly rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>21.03.2005 <\/p>\n<p>pv\/<\/p>\n<p>Copy to:\n<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner of Central Excise,<br \/>\nChennai I Commissionerate,<br \/>\nChennai 34.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/03\/2005 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.Justice MARKANDEY KATJU, Chief Justice and The Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA R.C.P.No. 8 of 2003 Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai I Commissionerate, Chennai 34. ::: Applicant -Vs- M\/s.ITC [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42421","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"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 vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - 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-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\" \/>\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.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - 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-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-30T11:23:43+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\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\\\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T11:23:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1976,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\\\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T11:23:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#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.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005\"}]},{\"@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.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - 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-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-30T11:23:43+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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005","datePublished":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T11:23:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005"},"wordCount":1976,"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\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005","name":"Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M\/S.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T11:23:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-central-excise-vs-ms-itc-ltd-on-21-march-2005#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.Itc Ltd on 21 March, 2005"}]},{"@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\/42421","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=42421"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42421\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42421"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42421"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42421"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}