SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 245

B.L.HANSARIA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Collector Of Central Excise, Patna – Appellant
Versus
Lt. C. LTD. – Respondent


ORDER

1. Having heard the counsel for both sides, we are of the opinion that it is not really necessary for us to go deep into the matter.

2. Respondent 1 is I.T.C. Limited. It appears, searches were made by the Director General of Inspection (Customs and Central Excise) in the premises of the first respondent on the basis of which he issued the proceedings called "Order-in-original No. 1/1986 dated 10-4-1986". In this order, he enunciated the principles applying which the amount of duty payable by the first respondent should be determined. It is stated that the assessing authority determined the duty at Rs 1,12,76,000.04 by its order dated 17-7-1986. Later on, the assessing authority served another demand for additional excise duty amounting Rs 8,29,10,883.25. This was done without giving an opportunity to the first respondent to meet the grounds upon which the duty was enhanced or revised, as the case may be. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court questioning the said enhanced demand which has been allowed by the High Court with the observation that before enhancing the duty payable by the first respondent, the assessing authority shall give a notice calling upon th





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top