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

2002 Supreme(All) 965

R.B.MISRA
JAI HIND BOTTLING COMPANY (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMR. (APPEALS) C. EX. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bharat Ji Agrawal, Pankaj Bhatiya, SUBODH KUMAR

R. B. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri Bharat Ji Agrawal along with Sri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Subodh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a company duly registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the manufacturing of soft drinks falling under Chapter XXII of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent No. 2 i. e. Additional Commissioner (Central Excise) issued a notice on 2-6-1999 demanding excise duty along with interest and mandatory penalty and intended to levy a penalty under Rule 209a of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on the petitioners nos. 2, 3 and 4. After hearing the petitioners, the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 26-12-2001 thereby imposing duty of Rs. 14,02,900/along with interest as provided under Section 11ab of the Central Excise Act in short called act 1944 and further penalty amounting to Rs. 14,02,900/- purported to be under Section 11ac of the act read with Rule 173q of the said Rules.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved against the above order, the petitioners preferred an appeal Under Section 35 of the act along with an











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