Commissioner of Central Excise - Appellant @HASH Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 30 Apr 2015 Civil Appeal No. 7829 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4525 of 2005, 5662 of 2006 and 6138-6139 of 2010. (2015) 04 SC CK 0042
Bench: Division Bench
Result Published

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 7829 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 4525 of 2005, 5662 of 2006 and 6138-6139 of 2010.

Hon'ble Bench

A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Advocates

S/Shri K. Radhakrishnan, Senior Advocate, Rupesh Kumar, Arijit Prasad and B. Krishna Prasad, Advocates, for the Appellants; S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, M.P. Devanath, Vivek Sharma, Ms. L. Charanaya, Aditya Bhattacharya, R. Ramachandran, Hemant Bajaj, Ambarish Pandey Anandh K. and Rajesh Kumar, Advocates, for the Respondents

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

1. We find from the reading of the impugned order of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has discussed in detail the accounting system of the respondent. The magnitude of the inputs used and the discrepancy which arose because of the various factors, on that basis it is stated that when the shortage of inputs as corrected is only 0.24%, that would be immaterial and correction of the total input is in use. In addition we find that the respondent had pointed out that this was due to accounting errors and there was no "shortage" in fact because of the reason that in respect of many inputs even stocks in excess was found. It was demonstrated before the authorities that though the shortage of the inputs was to the tune of Rs. 25.67 crores, at the same time many other inputs were in excess and those figures were to the tune of Rs. 27.59 crores during the same period. This fact alone demonstrates the bona fides of the respondent in claiming the Modvat credit on the basis of figures disclosed by them in respect of the inputs which were used while manufacturing the motor vehicles. A finding of fact is recorded that there was no clandestine of removal of any inputs. It is therefore, not a case for any interference.

2. These appeals are accordingly dismissed.

From The Blog
Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Calcutta High Court Quashes EPFO Order Denying Higher Pension to SAIL Staff, Calls It ‘Abuse of Law’
Read More
Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Nov
21
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Civil Judges in District Judge Promotions, Issues Fresh Rules on Seniority
Read More