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

1995 Supreme(SC) 843

M.K.MUKHERJEE, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Steel Authority Of India LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise – Respondent


(1) WHEN these appeals were taken up for admission, learned Counsel for the Revenue raised an objection that the appeals themselves are not maintainable and that this is a matter where the assessee should have sought reference under Section 35G(1 of the central Excises Act. Learned counsel for the appellant conceded the correctness of this objection. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable.

(2) IT is, however, open to the assessee to adopt the remedy provided under Section 35G of the Act in accordance with law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it will be open to the appellant to seek benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act in accordance with law.

(3) LEARNED counsel for the appellants points out that these appeals were filed within sixty days which is also the time prescribed for filing the reference before the tribunal. We do not express any opinion on the correctness of this submission. It is a matter for consideration by the tribunal.

(4) THE reference application may be filed within four weeks from today and if it so filed, the period between this date and date of filing shall not be taken into consideration

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