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

2008 Supreme(Guj) 97

M.S.SHAH, RAVI R.TRIPATHI
D. R. INDUSTRIES LTD. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates: HARIN RAVAL, P.J.Kanabar, PARESH M.DAVE,

M. S. SHAH, J.

( 1 ) ALL these petitions challenge the constitutional validity of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Act" for short) in so far as it provides that the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of 60 days is confined to delay for a further period of 30 days only.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 4973 of 2006, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Division I, Ankleshwar passed order dated 26. 6. 2002 confirming the demand of excise duty to the tune of Rs. 19,01,364/- with interest at the appropriate rate in terms of Section 11ab of the Act and also imposing penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the petitioner Company in terms of erstwhile Rule 173q (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara on 11/2/2003 alongwith an application for condoning the delay. The petitioner contended that although the impugned order was handed over by the Superintendent, Central Excise to their consultant in July, 2002, the same was not handed over to the































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