Back
A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, KRISHNA MURARI
State of U. P. , Through Secretary (Excise) – Appellant
Versus
Mcdowell and Company Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the incident and demand for excise duty arose from a fire. (Para 2 , 5 , 15) |
| 2. arguments revolve around negligence and liability. (Para 11 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court analyzed the negligence and control aspects. (Para 16 , 38 , 46) |
| 4. determination of legal liability and excise duty applicability. (Para 37 , 42 , 59) |
| 5. final decision overwhelmingly supports appellant's claims. (Para 72) |
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary and brief outline
2. By way of these appeals, the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers related with the Excise Department as also the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur have essentially questioned the order dated 10.04.2017 in Misc. Bench No. 4493 of 2006, whereby the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow,1[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the High Court’.] quashed the demand raised against the writ petitioner company (respondent herein) towards loss of excise revenue because of destruction of liquor in fire. The appellants have also questioned the order dated 06.11.2019 in C.M. Application No. 90936 of 2019, whereby the High Cour
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
