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

1982 Supreme(Pat) 106

BIRENDRA PRASAD SINHA, SATYESHWAR ROY
Tata Yodogwa Limited – Appellant
Versus
Asstt. Collector Of Central Excise – Respondent


Judgment

Satyeshwar Roy, J.

1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 24-11-1979 passed by Respondent No. 1 imposing duty and penalty on the petitioners under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act), Annexure-1 to this application, notices dated 5-12-1979 issued by Respondent No. 2 demanding payment of the said amount and to submit revised classification list under Tariff Item 68, Annexure 2 and 2/1 respectively, and notice dated 2-7-1979 issued by Respondent No. 2 for paying duty on goods before machining and/or polishing under Tariff Item No. 26AA(V) Annexure-2/2 Originally in the writ petition prayers were confined with regard to the aforesaid annexures only. While the writ petition was pending the petitioner, according to it, by way of abundant precaution filed an appeal against Annexure 1 and prayed for stay of the same till the disposal of the writ petition. However, the appellate authority refused the prayer and disposed of the appeal by rejecting it. The petitioners filed amendment of the writ petition praying for quashing the appellate order and the same was allowed. In this































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