Case Details: Commissioner of CGST vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (2025) 35 Centax 277 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Aravind Kumar & N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
- S/Shri S. Dwarkanath, A.S.G., Bhuvan Kapoor, Ishaan Sharma, Pushpinder Singh Nanda, Advocates & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Kavin Gulati, Sr. Advocate, Kumar Visalaksh, Gopal Mundhra, Udit Jain, Ms Priyadarshini Shekhawat, Advocates & Abhishek Vikas, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee was issued a first show cause notice by the Department under the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the basis of facts already within the knowledge of the authorities. Subsequently, the Department issued second and third show cause notices on the same or similar facts, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the ground of suppression of facts. The assessee contended that since all relevant facts were already known to the Department when the first notice was issued, the subsequent notices could not be sustained on the ground of suppression. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when all relevant facts were within the knowledge of the authorities at the time of issuance of the first show cause notice, the same or similar facts could not be treated as suppression of facts for issuing subsequent show cause notices. The Court observed that the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had rightly held that only the first show cause notice was sustainable in law and that the second and third notices, based on identical material, were unsustainable. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned findings of the Tribunal and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 35 Centax 276 (Tri. – Mum.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
