Back
U.L.BHAT, K.SANKARARAMAN
ITC Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi – Respondent
Per Justice U.L. Bhat :
These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Original No. 3/95 dated 29.12.95 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. Following are the particulars of the appellants :-
| Appeal No. | Name of the appellant | Referred to as |
| E/209/96-A | M/s. I.T.C. Ltd. ITC | |
| E/210/96-A | J.N. Sapru | - |
| E/211/96-A | J. Narayan | - |
| E/288/96-A | M/s. Asia Tobacco Ltd. ATC | |
| E/289/96-A | M/s. Hyderabad Deccan Cigarette Factory Ltd. HDCF | |
| E/290/96-A | M/s. Lakshmi Tobacco Coy. LTC | |
| E/291/96-A | M/s. Reliable Cigarettes and Tobacco Industries (Pvt) Ltd. RCTI | |
| E/292/96-A | M/s. Master Tobacco Co. MTC | |
| E/293/96 | M/s. Crown Tobacco Coy. CTC | |
| E/294/96-A | R. Bhoothalingam | |
| E/331/96-A | Samir Ghosh | |
| E/332/96-A | Abhijit Basu | |
| E/338/96-A | S.K. Mehta |
2. The particulars of demand of duty proposed in the show cause notice for the period 1.3.83 to 28.2.87 and demand confirmed and penalty imposed on the assessees are as follows :-
| Concern under Rule 9 (2) and 52A (5) (c) | Duty proposed (in rupees) Rule 209 | Duty confirmed (in rupees) | Penalty in rupees | Penalty under |
| ITC Bangalore | 279,83,88,692.08 | 279,03,10,328.45 | 14 Crores | 20 Crores |
| ITC Munghyr | 112,70,42,540.04 | 112,08,90,897.49 | 2.5 Crores | 4.5 Crores |
| ITC Kidderpore | 69,42,10,874.20 | 67,80,89,865.15 | 3 Crores | 3.5 Crores |
| ITC Sah | ||||
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
