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

H.R.SYIEM, M.SANTHANAM
Timblo and Timblo (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Goa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Soli J. Sorabjee,V. Zutshi

ORDER

M. Santhanam, Member (J)

1. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals, they were taken up together. The appeals have been filed under the following circumstances:

2. The appellants are manufacturers of collapsible tubes falling under Item No. 27(e) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants clear the plain tubes on payment of duty and thereafter subject the goods to the process of lacquering and/or printing. The appellants furnished price list showing therein the price of the plain tubes. In the remarks column, they have adverted to the printing, lacquering, etc. The Superintendent of Central Excise informed the appellants to score the remarks and hence they were scored. The appellants submit that they have not suppressed any fact and have intimated the Department the nature of the activities including that of printing and lacquering. The invoices have been checked by the Department and the relevant returns have been filed. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 1-12-1978 alleging that aluminium containers were cleared by mis-describing them as collapsible tubes for further lacquering and printing which were

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