Back
2002(6) Supreme 36
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P. Bharucha, CJI., N. Santosh Hegde, & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. -Appellant
versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 6514-6516 of 1994
Decided on 11-4-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S/Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, Rajan Narain, Ashok Sagar, Ms. Vandana Chugh and Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondent : S/Shri R. Mohan, Sr. Advocate, Ashok K. Srivastava and B.K. Prasad, Advocates.
ORDER
We have read the judgments of the Larger Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which are impugned in these appeals. We are of the view that the judgments viewed Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act in the proper perspective. The two sections operate in different fields and are invoked for different purposes. Different time limits are, therefore, set out therein. We do not accept the contention that recovery of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35E if the time limited provided in Section 11A has expired. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be imperssible.
2. The appeals are dismissed with costs.
Appeals dismissed.
**************
Parallel Citations of Other Journals:
Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 2002(6) Supreme 36 : 2002(142) ELT 522 : 2002(50) RLT 873 : (2002) 103 ECR 278 : 2002(82) CC 459.
00022
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
