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

JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, V.K.AGRAWAL
Kingwin Universal (India) – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V. Sridharan,Ravinder Babu

ORDER

Per Jyoti Balasundaram :

The brief facts of the case are that acting on information that M/s. Kingwin Universal, M/s. Kingwin Chemical, M/s. Kingwin International, M/s. Kingwin Johnson (hereinafter referred to as KWU, KWC, KWI, KWJ respectively and also jointly referred to as 'KINGWIN', were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Industrial cleaners, polishes, speciality chemicals for machine cleaning, water treatment and preventive maintenance, as well as cosmetics, falling under Chapter Headings 3823, 3305, 3405 without obtaining Central Excise licence/registration and without payment of Excise duty, officers of the Central Excise, Jaipur visited the factory premises on 25.10.97 and seized certain records and recorded the statement of Dr. S.N. Chadha, Prop of M/s. KWC who stated inter-alia that all the four units were engaged in the manufacture of common products in the same plot and that records of all the four units were maintained in the same plot; that Proprietors of all the four firms were, himself (Dr. Chadha), his wife Amita Chadha and his two sons Shri Ajay Chadha and Shri Sanjay Chadha); that the word 'Kingwin' is used to identify the company's product; that th

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