COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE vs M/S. RAYMOND LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR — C.A. No. 3896 - 3898/2009

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010291432005

Filing Date

23-Dec-2005

Registration No

C.A. No. 3896 - 3898/2009

Diary Number

29143/2005

Order Date

06-Sep-2017

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 01-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S. RAYMOND LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR

    Adv. JAY SAVLA (Dead / Retired / Elevated)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Sep-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-Sep-2017

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

  4. 05-Sep-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 11-Apr-2013
  6. 08-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 28-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 10-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 12-May-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 02-Mar-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 22-Oct-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 14-May-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 30-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 13-Oct-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 06-Jul-2006
  16. 03-Mar-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 23-Dec-2005

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 3896 - 3898/2009

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore v. M/S. Raymond Ltd. The Supreme Court dismissed the Commissioner's appeal challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order regarding excise demands against Raymond Ltd. The Tribunal held that excise proceedings initiated under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act must commence within six months from the relevant date; since the department possessed knowledge of the sales policy and sales agreement basis for demands since 1997 but raised demands only after five years, no suppression or mis-statement could justify extended limitation periods. The Court upheld this factual finding as legally sound, finding no substantial question of law error. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case