Ravindra and Company Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Ravindra and Company vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 12, 1987

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/471908

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/471908
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: K.C. Agarwal and ;R.K. Gulati, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 12, 1987
Case Number: Civil Misc. W.P. No. 778/86
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Writ - Jurisdiction--Alternative remedy--Duty liability of tobacco can be decided only by the appropriate lower authority and not by the High Court--Constitution of India : Article 226. -

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ravindra and Company

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1987(13)ECC191; 1987(13)LC510(Allahabad); 1988(33)ELT296(All)

Excerpt

writ - jurisdiction--alternative remedy--duty liability of tobacco can be decided only by the appropriate lower authority and not by the high court--constitution of india : article 226. - order1. on 19-7-1986, tobacco, which, according to the petitioner, was hukka tobacco, was seized by respondent 3, i.e. assistant collector of central excise, gauhati. since the tobacco has not been released despite requests made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed for mandamus directing the respondents to release the same as according to the petitioner no excise duty was leviable on hukka tobacco.2. a counter-affidavit and thereafter a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondents i and 2, stating, amongst others, that it was not hukka tobacco, but chewing tobacco, and, as such, it was leviable.3. we are not required to go into this controversy at this stage of the proceedings. we consider it appropriate that the authority, whosoever may be entitled to look into this controversy, may do so, preferably within three months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.4. subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. On 19-7-1986, tobacco, which, according to the petitioner, was hukka tobacco, was seized by respondent 3, i.e. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Gauhati. Since the tobacco has not been released despite requests made by the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed for Mandamus directing the respondents to release the same as according to the petitioner no excise duty was leviable on hukka tobacco.

2. A counter-affidavit and thereafter a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondents I and 2, stating, amongst others, that it was not hukka tobacco, but chewing tobacco, and, as such, it was leviable.

3. We are not required to go into this controversy at this stage of the proceedings. We consider it appropriate that the authority, whosoever may be entitled to look into this controversy, may do so, preferably within three months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.

4. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1987 Same Parties Ravindra and Company vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Excise Same Judge K.C. Agarwal and ;R.K. Gulati, JJ.

Excise