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

G.SANKARAN, V.T.RAGHAVACHARI, V.P.GULATI
Neelam Tin Industries – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.N. Avasthi,Vineet Kumar

ORDER

V.T. Raghavachari, Member (J)

1. E-Appeal No. 1157/81-D of M/s. Neelam Tin Industries was dismissed under Order No. D-438/85 dated 11-12-85. The appellants have filed the present application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act According to them their case would be covered by Notification No. 97/84-CE dated 23-4-84 issued by the Central Government under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and that a copy of the said notification was filed by them on 9-12-85 bringing to the attention of the Tribunal the said notification but that without the same being taken into account the order dated 11-12-85 had been passed. According to them there has, therefore, been an error apparent from the record in the order dated 11-12-85 and therefore the said error is to be rectified.

2. We have heard Shri P.N. Avasthi, Advocate for the applicants/ appellants and Shri Vineet Kumar for the Deptt.

3. In this case arguments in the appeal had been heard on 14-10-1985 and the orders had been reserved. Thereafter one of the Members had prepared the order dismissing the appeal and signed the same on 7-11-85. Subsequently, the other two Members had, while concurring that

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