The Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd

Court:Supreme Court of India
Judge:Hon'ble Unknown Judge
Case Status:Pending
Order Date:16 Nov 2020
CNR:SCIN010188802020

AI Summary

Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order

Original Order Copy

Get a certified copy of this order

Download True Copy

Order Text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) $No(s).11239/2020$ (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23-01-2020 in TA No. 698/2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad) COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX Petitioner(s) VERSUS M/S SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD Respondent $(s)$ (WITH IA No. 94518/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) WITH SLP(C) No. 11655/2020 (III) (WITH IA NO. 98377/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date: 16-11-2020 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE For Petitioner(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Adv. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Apeksha Mehta, Adv. Ms. Mounica Kasturi, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following $0 R D E R$

ITEM NO.2

Mr K M Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General, appears on behalf of the petitioner. Mr V Lakshmikumaran, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.

SECTION III

Court 5 (Video Conferencing)

  • $\mathcal{L}$ The Additional Solicitor General has relied on the decisions of this Court in CCE & Customs $\vee$ ISPAT Industries Ltd<sup>1</sup> and CCE $\vee$ Ultra Tech Cement Ltd<sup>2</sup> in support of the submission that the place of the buyer cannot be regarded as the place of removal in view of the amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act 1944.
  • $\mathbf{3}$ Mr V Lakshmikumaran, on the other hand, submitted that the respondent included freight and insurance for the purpose of valuation and paid higher excise duty excise duty.
  • $\overline{4}$ The issue requires consideration in view of the above decisions of this Court.
  • $\mathsf{S}$ Leave granted.
  • $\mathbf{6}$ Hearing expedited.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) $AR - CUM - PS$

(SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER

<span id="page-1-1"></span><span id="page-1-0"></span>1(2016) 1 SCC 631 2(2018) 2 SCC 721

Share This Order

Case History of Orders

Order(4) - 19 Jan 2022

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view

Order(3) - 3 Sept 2021

ROP

Click to view

Order(2) - 16 Nov 2020

ROP - of Main Case

Viewing

Order(1) - 14 Oct 2020

ROP - of Main Case

Click to view