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

G.SANKARAN, S.G.JAIN, M.SANTHANAM
Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad – Appellant
Versus
Uma Laminated Products (P. ) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Lakshmi Kumaran,K. Narasimhan, Pratap Rao

ORDER

G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. The present proceedings arise out of the notice bearing F. No. 198/B/13/94/81-C X.5, dated 21st July, 1981 issued by the Central Government to the Respondents (hereinafter referred to as Uma Laminated) calling upon them to show cause why the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), should not set aside the Order-in-Appeal No. 68/81 dated 9-2-1981 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad and restore the Orders-in-Original dated 12-3-1980 and 5-8-1980 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad or pass orders as deemed fit. These proceedings have come to this Tribunal as transferred proceedings under Section 35-P of the Act and are being disposed of as if it were an appeal filed by the Central Government before the Tribunal.

2. Uma Laminated are manufacturers of "Polyethylene Coated Paper" and "Polyethylene Sandwiched Paper" using duty-paid kraft paper and duty-paid polyethylene granules as the main raw materials. Excise duty was being charged on these goods under Item No. 17 (2) of the Central Exci

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