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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 198

CHITTATOSH MUKHERJEE
NILSIN COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Chandrima Bhattacharya, R.N.DAS, Sanjoy Bhattacharyya, Uma Sanyal

CHITTATOSH MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-firm, since the year 1965, had been manufacturing "ultramarine blue" at its factory at 59, Grand Trunk Road, Liluah, District Howrah. The petitioner-firm had taken out requisite licence for manufacturing excisable goods and had also executed necessary bond under the Central Excise Rules, inter alia, undertaking to produce for charge of duty all excisable goods manufactured in its factory, to maintain accounts and to pay excise duty leviable thereon, etc. Both the petitioner and the Central excise authorities, until the time mentioned hereinafter, had acted on the basis that ultramarine blue manufactured by the petitioner was included within Item No. 141 (5) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner was being assessed under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in respect of ultramarine blue according to the rate of duty mentioned against the goods specified in Item No. 141 (5) of the First Schedule to the said Act.

( 2 ) ON 20th August, 1971, a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, had decreed a civil suit brought by M/s. C. M. C. India, inter alia, for declaring that 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