L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise and ors.

L.M.L. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 03, 1991

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484237

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/484237
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and; S.R. Singh, J.
Decided On: Apr 03, 1991
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 643 of 1991
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

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

Alternative remedy under the CESA being available, writ petition against order of Tribunal not maintainable. -

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

L.M.L. Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of Central Excise and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1992(39)LC261(Allahabad)

Excerpt

alternative remedy under the cesa being available, writ petition against order of tribunal not maintainable. - b.p. jeevan reddy, c.j.1. this writ petition is preferred against two orders of customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal, passed under sub-section (2) of section 35-g of the central excise act. against these orders, an application for 'reference' lies under section 35-g. hence, this petition is not maintainable. it is accordingly dismissed.2. however, it is open to the petitioner to file application for 'reference' before the tribunal and if it declined, it is always open to him to approach this court according to law.

Full Judgment

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.

1. This writ petition is preferred against two orders of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, passed under Sub-section (2) of Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act. Against these orders, an application for 'Reference' lies Under Section 35-G. Hence, this petition is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.

2. However, it is open to the petitioner to file application for 'Reference' before the Tribunal and if it declined, it is always open to him to approach this Court according to law.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1991 Same Parties L.M.L. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise and ors. Same Subject Excise Same Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and; S.R. Singh, J.

Excise