M/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LTD. MAHESH TANEJA G.M. (FINANCE AND I.T.) vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (DELHI IV) COMMISSIONER — C.A. No. 2576/2010
Case under Section IV. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010355902008
Filing Date
06-Dec-2008
Registration No
C.A. No. 2576/2010
Diary Number
35590/2008
Order Date
23-Sep-2022
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2022 INSC 1008
Disposal Type
Dismissed
Last updated 05-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LTD. MAHESH TANEJA G.M. (FINANCE AND I.T.)
Adv. RAJESH KUMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (DELHI IV) COMMISSIONER
Adv. MUKESH KUMAR MARORIA[R-1]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Sep-2022
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Sep-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Sep-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
-
06-Sep-2022
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Sep-2022
Fixed Date by Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
-
01-Sep-2022
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari
-
04-Nov-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Nov-2019
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
03-May-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jan-2013
ROPView PDF
-
05-Jul-2011
ROPView PDF
-
16-Mar-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Dec-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Apr-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Dec-2008
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 2576/2010
-
[ 2022 INSC 1008 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals by M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. and M/s. Friends Trading Co., upholding customs duty demands against them. Both companies had imported goods using forged DEPB (Duty Entitlement Passbook) licenses/scripps to claim duty exemptions. The Court held that since the DEPB documents were fraudulent and void ab initio, the companies must pay the evaded customs duty with interest, and the Department was justified in invoking extended limitation periods. The Court clarified that while buyers' knowledge of fraud bears on penalty determination, it is irrelevant to duty liability itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts