S.RANGARAJAN, R.N.AGGARWAL
HINDUSTAN ALUMINIUM CORPORATION LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
CONTROLLER OF ALUMINIUM – Respondent
( 1 ) THE petitioner company, which manufactures aluminium, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the show cause notice dated 21-8-75 (copy of which is Annexure Z to the petition) issued by the Collector of Mirzapur (R-5), giving the petitioner an opportunity of making a representation and of being heard concerning why 2032. 512 M. Tons of aluminium which was seized by the Superintendent of Central Excise SRP II (R-3) on 16th/17th July, 1975 should not be confiscated. for contravention of the orders referred to in the said notice.
( 2 ). After issuing a notice to the respondents to show cause why this Writ Petition should not be admitted the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. It was felt the petition required examination; it was admitted and the respondents were given an opportunity to file further retunis and the petitioner also to file further rejoinder. Having regard to nearly rupees two crores worth of aluminium, said to be a scarce metal, having been seized and since holding up such huge stocks of this metal at the present moment would not be in the national interest this W
REFERRED TO : Collector of Customs v. Nathella Samnathu Chetty and another
M. G. Abrol v. Amichand Vallamji and others
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. A. J. Rana and others
The Collector, Central Excise v. L. Kashi Nath Jewellers
Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.