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

1963 Supreme(Mad) 175

ANANTANARAYANAN, P.RAMAKRISHNAN
Collector of Central Excise, Madras – Appellant
Versus
V. K. Palappa Nadar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:N. Arunachalam, Advocate.

Judgment :-

RAMAKRISHNA, J.

This writ appeal is filed under the Letters Patent against the decision of Ramachandra Iyer, J., (as he then was), in writ petition No. 590 of 1958. The prior facts which led to the present proceedings, are briefly the following :

The petitioner in the writ petition is a dealer in scented chewing tobacco, cigars and beedies, and he had a licence for maintaining warehouse for the storing of tobacco. Under the rules, for the grant of such licence, the petitioner had to keep proper accounts of the stock of tobacco in the warehouse. On a check by the Excise authorities, his stock was found short by a substantial quantity. This made the petitioner liable to certain penalties, under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rule 223-A). The Collector of Central Excise called upon him to show cause, why a penalty should not be inflicted upon for the shortage. After receiving the petitioner's explanation, the Collector found that the explanation was not satisfactory and imposed on the petitioner a penalty in a sum exceeding a lakh of rupees, under Rule 223-A of the Central Excise Rule.

Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act (Central Act I of 1944), gave the petitione








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