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

1986 Supreme(AP) 10

B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
Bombay Iron Foundry – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad – Respondent


UPENDRALAL WAGHRAY, J.

( 1 ) THE writ Appeal is filed by 27 petitioners against the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE appellants are operating Small Scale Foundries in the Hyderabad Urban Agglomeration and in Nizamabad district. For the production (manufacture of iron castings, they use old iron scrap and pig iron as raw material. They are all recognised as Small Scale Industries by the State Government authorities and they get their requirements of pig iron from them. The assistant Collector, Central Excise, by his letter/dated 21-8-1981 informed the petitioners that because pig iron is also used as a raw material in the manufacture of iron castings, produced by them they obliged to take L4 licence under the Act, as the product is liable to excise duty under item 25 -shedule I of the Central Excise Act The petitioners have filed writ petition questioning the correctness of the view of the Assistant collector and his jurisdiction contending that the Iron casting manufactured by them are not liable to Excise duty and that they are not obliged to take out L4 licence. the writ petition was opposed by the Department contending that in view of









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