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

B.B.GUJRAL, M.GOURI SHANKAR MURTHY, A.J.F.D’SOUZA
Orissa Construction Corpn. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N.B. Choudhary,P.M. Panwar

ORDER

1. In this revision under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (as it stood at the relevant time), hereinafter referred to as the Act, transferred to the Tribunal and heard by us as if it were an appeal pursuant to Section 35 of the Act, it would appear that-

(a) the Appellant entered into a composite contract with the State of Orissa for fabrication, supply and erection of radial gates for which a lump-sum payment was to be made in terms of the contract ; the State of Orissa was to supply the Appellant, bars, plates, slabs etc. and radial gates were to be manufactured and erected at the site ; the contract, however, did not quantify the consideration separately for fabrication, supply and erection ;

(b) the Appellant had failed to obtain a licence under Sec. 6 of the Act read with Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), notwithstanding that, admittedly, they were fabricating the aforesaid gates without the aid of power employing more than 49 workers ;

(c) a notice dated 12-4-1977 was accordingly issued to the Appellant requiring the Appellant to show cause-

(i) why a penalty should not be imposed on the Appellant; and

(ii

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