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

1989 Supreme(All) 206

R.K.GULATI, R.M.SAHAI
WIMCO LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


R. M. SAHAI, J.

( 1 ) THE only question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the claim of refund of excise duty paid by petitioner on certain goods which were exempted under notification was within time.


( 2 ) ALTHOUGH facts are undisputed yet it is necessary to narrate them in brief in order to appreciate if the order passed by opposite parties is well founded in law. In June, 1977 notification was issued under Rule 8 (1) of Central Excise Rules of 1954 framed under Central Excises and Salt act,1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) exempting all excisable goods, on which the duty on excise was leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the first Schedule of the Act referred to as inputs had been used from so much of the duty of excise leviable on it as was equivalent of the duty of excise already paid on the inputs. After the notification issued in June, 1977, therefore, Central Excise Collectorate, Allahabad issued instructions on 7th December, 1977 clarifying and providing that the set off duty predetermined and approved by Assistant Collector will be allowable at the time of clearance of finished excisable products of manufac







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