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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 684

S.JAGADEESAN, E.PADMANABHAN
Kali Aerated Water Works – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:K.P.B. Premkumar, K. Veeraraghavan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

The Order of the Court is as follows :-

In all these writ appeals, the questions arise for consideration are one and the same and hence, by consent of all the counsels, the writ appeals are taken up for joint final disposal.

2.The appellants herein filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of Clause (4) of the Notification No. 59 of 1994 Central Excise dated 1-3-1994. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity of the said Clause. Both the learned Counsels agreed that the validity of the said Clause has also been upheld by the Apex Court. Hence, there is no need to traverse the validity of the said Clause.

3.The question for consideration is as to whether the appellants are entitled for the exemption of excise duty as per the said Clause of the exemption Notification. Before any adjudication proceedings were initiated, the appellants approached this Court questioning the validity of the Clause (4) of the said Notification. Incidentally, they also claimed that they are entitled for the benefit of exemption. While the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of the said Clause, had also gone into the question of entitlement of the appellants for the exemption. In




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