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.

Associated Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat

Associated Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. vs Cegat

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Feb 16, 1995
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/485666

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
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Misc. Application No. 10069 of 1995 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57 of 1994
Subject
Civil;Excise

Case Summary

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

- - 3. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, I find that there is no confusion, but it is surprising that the President of the learned Tribunal as well as technical member have not been able to appreciate the observation:

Key legal issue
Civil;Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Associated Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd.

Advocate A.P. Mathur, Adv.

Respondent

Cegat

Advocate H.N. Shukla, Standing Counsel

Legal References

Reported In
1995(78)ELT14(All)

Excerpt

- - 3. on perusal of the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, i find that there is no confusion, but it is surprising that the president of the learned tribunal as well as technical member have not been able to appreciate the observation:k.l. sharma, j.1. this is an application by the petitioner for clarification of the order dated 10-1-1995 passed by this court in w.p. no. 57 of 1994 as the learned tribunal has observed that there is a confusion.2. i have heard sri a.p. mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri h.n. shukla learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the writ petition in which this order finally disposing of the writ petition was passed.3. on perusal of the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, i find that there is no confusion, but it is surprising that the president of the learned tribunal as well as technical member have not been able to appreciate the observation:'but the same purpose could be achieved by permitting him to furnish a security bond.' made by this court with a view to repel the condition of cash deposit of seven lacs. this observation is required to be kept into consideration by the learned tribunal while reconsidering and deciding afresh the waiver/stay application of the applicant in the appeal pending before the learned tribunal. there is no conflict or confusion between these observations referred to above and the operative direction given by this court. it is now expected that the learned tribunal shall reconsider and decide the waiver/stay application in appeal keeping the aforesaid observation in mind. the application is accordingly disposed of.4. a certified copy of this order be issued within two days on payment of usual charges.

Full Judgment

K.L. Sharma, J.

1. This is an application by the petitioner for clarification of the order dated 10-1-1995 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 57 of 1994 as the learned Tribunal has observed that there is a confusion.

2. I have heard Sri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.N. Shukla learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record of the writ petition in which this order finally disposing of the writ petition was passed.

3. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 10-1-1995, I find that there is no confusion, but it is surprising that the President of the learned Tribunal as well as technical member have not been able to appreciate the observation:

'But the same purpose could be achieved by permitting him to furnish a security bond.'

made by this Court with a view to repel the condition of cash deposit of seven lacs. This observation is required to be kept into consideration by the learned Tribunal while reconsidering and deciding afresh the waiver/stay application of the applicant in the appeal pending before the learned Tribunal. There is no conflict or confusion between these observations referred to above and the operative direction given by this Court. It is now expected that the learned Tribunal shall reconsider and decide the waiver/stay application in appeal keeping the aforesaid observation in mind. The application is accordingly disposed of.

4. A certified copy of this order be issued within two days on payment of usual charges.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial