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

S.VENKATESAN, K.L.REKHI, V.T.RAGHAVACHARI
Vikrant Tyres Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Ravinder Narain, P.K. Ram,H.L. Verma

ORDER

S. Venkatesan, Sr. Vice-President

1. These two appeals raise a question regarding the interpretation of Notification No. 201/79-CE, dated 4-6-79. They arise out of two orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, IDO, Mysore, and the two corresponding Orders-in-appeal passed by the Collectors of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.

2. When these two appeals were taken up for hearing, a question arose whether they were properly matters for a Special Bench. It was seen that the West Regional Bench of the Tribunal, in its Order dated 10-1-84 in Appeal No. A. 154/83 of Bajaj Tempo Limited, had also decided a matter in which the above notification was involved. Again, the South Regional Bench, in its Order in the case of Warner Hindustan Ltd., Hyderabad, reported in MANU/CC/0024/1983 : 1984 (16) E.L.T. 373, dealt with a matter arising out of the same notification. However, we also found that these two appeals originally came up before the South Regional Bench, and that Bench itself had taken the view that jurisdiction to decide these two appeals would lie with a Special Bench and had accordingly transferred them from itself. We were inclined to agree with the South Region

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