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

G.SANKARAN, V.T.RAGHAVACHARI
Collector of Central Excise, Madras – Appellant
Versus
Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Dolly Saxena,F.S. Nariman, R.K. Lukose

ORDER

V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

1. Since the issue involved in these three appeals is common they were heard together. The said issue relates to eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 201/79 to M/s. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. in respect of duty paid by them on rubber process oil, renacit-VII and Stearic acid, consumed by them in the manufacture of masticated rubber in their Kottayam factory, which masticated rubber they removed to their other factories at Madras, Arkonam and Goa for further manufacture of rubber tyres and other rubber products. Their request in this regard had been turned down by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras under his orders dated 17.11.1980 and 20.10.1980 but on appeal the said orders had been set aside by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Central Government was of the view that the said order of the Central Board was not proper, legal and correct. Accordingly, notice dated 21.12.1981 was issued by the Central Government under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The proceedings so initiated were subsequently transferred to this Tribunal and the same is the subject matter of appeal No. 1413/ 81 -D. The other two appeals

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