Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Poddar Projects Ltd. Vs. the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Iii Division and

Poddar Projects Ltd. vs The Assistant Collector, Central Excise Iii Division And; the Superintendent of Central Excise

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 23, 1981
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/428957

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Writ Petition No. 2115 of 1980
Subject
Excise
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

CE and SALT ACT, 1944, Section 3 - T/I 26, CE RULES 192 TO 196; NOTFN. NO. 16/79-CE dt. 20.1.79 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 -

Key legal issue
Excise
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Poddar Projects Ltd.

Respondent

The Assistant Collector, Central Excise Iii Division And; the Superintendent of Central Excise

Legal References

Reported In
1983LC2049(AP)

Excerpt

ce and salt act, 1944, section 3 - t/i 26, ce rules 192 to 196; notfn. no. 16/79-ce dt. 20.1.79 constitution of india, article 226 - orderraghuvir, j.1. petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the high court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders and direct the respondents to act according to law laid down in central excise notification no. 16/79 dated 20.1.79 and restrain from collecting excise duty on skull scrap, runners and raisers arising out of the manufacture of steel ingots through the aid of electric furnace in the petitioner industry.2. this petition coming on wednesday, the 21st day of january 1981, and thursday, the 22nd day of january 1981, and this day on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit therein, and the writ and rule nisi directed by the order of the high court, dated 13.5.80 and made herein and the records submitted in pursuance thereof, and the counter affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of mr. v. jagannadha rao. advocate for the petitioner and of mr. k. subrahmanya reddy, standing counsel for the central government on behalf of the respondents, the court made the following:

Full Judgment

ORDER

Raghuvir, J.

1. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders and direct the respondents to act according to law laid down in Central Excise Notification No. 16/79 dated 20.1.79 and restrain from collecting excise duty on skull scrap, runners and raisers arising out of the manufacture of Steel ingots through the aid of electric furnace in the petitioner industry.

2. This petition coming on Wednesday, the 21st day of January 1981, and Thursday, the 22nd day of January 1981, and this day on for hearing upon perusing the petition and the affidavit therein, and the writ and Rule Nisi directed by the order of the High Court, dated 13.5.80 and made herein and the records submitted in pursuance thereof, and the counter affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Jagannadha Rao. Advocate for the Petitioner and of Mr. K. Subrahmanya Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Central Government on behalf of the respondents, the Court made the following:

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial