Super Electronics Vs. Assistant Collector of C. Ex.

Super Electronics vs Assistant Collector of C. Ex.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 28, 1995

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/486086

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/486086
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Om Prakash and ;B. Dikshit, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 28, 1995
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 495 of 1995
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Super Electronics

Respondent

Assistant Collector of C. Ex.

Legal References

Reported In: 1996(83)ELT268(All)

Excerpt

- order1. the only question for consideration in this case is whether an order dated 20-12-1993 (annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the collector (appeals) allowing refund to the petitioner has become inoperative by virtue of the fact that an appeal by the respondent against that order is pending before the central excise customs and gold (control) tribunal.2. it is settled law that no order will become inoperative simply on account of pendency of appeal unless its operation is stayed by higher authority. it is not the case of the respondent that any stay order was obtained from the tribunal against the order of the collector (appeals) and, therefore, that order being final will continue to be operative unless its operation is stayed by the tribunal.3. upon hearing the parties the petition succeeds and is allowed. the respondents is directed to make refund pursuant to the order of the collector (appeals) ghaziabad (annexure 2 to the writ petition) within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent by the petitioner.4. a certified copy of this order will be supplied to the parties on payment within 24 hours, if possible.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The only question for consideration in this case is whether an order dated 20-12-1993 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector (Appeals) allowing refund to the petitioner has become inoperative by virtue of the fact that an appeal by the respondent against that order is pending before the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Tribunal.

2. It is settled law that no order will become inoperative simply on account of pendency of appeal unless its operation is stayed by higher authority. It is not the case of the respondent that any stay order was obtained from the Tribunal against the order of the Collector (Appeals) and, therefore, that order being final will continue to be operative unless its operation is stayed by the Tribunal.

3. Upon hearing the parties the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents is directed to make refund pursuant to the order of the Collector (Appeals) Ghaziabad (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the respondent by the petitioner.

4. A certified copy of this order will be supplied to the parties on payment within 24 hours, if possible.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1995 Same Parties Super Electronics vs Assistant Collector of C. Ex. Same Subject Excise Same Judge Om Prakash and ;B. Dikshit, JJ.

Excise