Surendra Enterprise Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Surendra Enterprise vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 21, 1990

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/484474

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/484474
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.R. Misra, J.
Decided On: Aug 21, 1990
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1990
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Alternative remedy - must be availed of where the law provides it. Writ dismissed. -

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surendra Enterprise

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: 1990(31)LC393(Allahabad)

Excerpt

alternative remedy - must be availed of where the law provides it. writ dismissed. - 1. the writ petition is directed against a proceeding dated 24.7.1990 of the assistant collector (valuation), central excise, kanpur addressed to the petitioner intimating him that the 'zarda' sold by him in retail packets in the brand name is dutiable order the heading 24.01 (sic). this proceeding was issued in reply to a letter of the petitioner dated 11.7.1990 in which he contended that the packets contain tobacco and nothing else. the petitioner says that according to trade notice no. 136 of 87 it falls under heading 24.01 of the schedule to the central excise and tariff act and must be treated as unmanufactured tobacco.2. an appeal lies against the impugned notice under section 35 of the central excise act. there is no reason why the petitioner should not adopt the said statutory remedy nor there is any reason why should he be allowed relief by this court at this stage.3. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the said ground. it shall be open to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided by section 35 along with a stay petition. if such an appeal and stay petition is filed, the authority shall dispose it of within one month of its filing.4. copy of this order may be supplied to the petitioner's counsel on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.

Full Judgment

1. The writ petition is directed against a proceeding dated 24.7.1990 of the Assistant Collector (Valuation), Central Excise, Kanpur addressed to the petitioner intimating him that the 'Zarda' sold by him in retail packets in the brand name is dutiable order the heading 24.01 (sic). This proceeding was issued in reply to a letter of the petitioner dated 11.7.1990 in which he contended that the packets contain tobacco and nothing else. The petitioner says that according to trade notice No. 136 of 87 it falls under heading 24.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act and must be treated as unmanufactured tobacco.

2. An appeal lies against the impugned notice under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. There is no reason why the petitioner should not adopt the said statutory remedy nor there is any reason why should he be allowed relief by this Court at this stage.

3. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the said ground. It shall be open to the petitioner to file an appeal as provided by Section 35 along with a stay petition. If such an appeal and stay petition is filed, the authority shall dispose it of within one month of its filing.

4. Copy of this order may be supplied to the petitioner's counsel on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1990 Same Parties Surendra Enterprise vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Same Subject Excise Same Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.R. Misra, J.

Excise