Bombay Tyres International Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Indore - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/671205 |
| Subject | Excise |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Jul-11-1997 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 1909 of 1997 |
| Judge | J.S. Verma, C.J.,; K. Ramaswamy and; B.N. Kirpal, JJ. |
| Reported in | 2000(72)ECC471; 2000(121)ELT8(SC); JT1998(4)SC437; (1997)8SCC404 |
| Appellant | Bombay Tyres International Ltd. |
| Respondent | Collector of Central Excise, Indore |
| Cases Referred | Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
|
Excerpt:
.....her stridhana. stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband.indian penal code, 1890. sections 405 & 406: meaning of stridhana held, properties gifted to girl before marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are girls absolute properties with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. husband has no control over her stridhana. stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband.sections 405 & 406: misappropriation of dowry articles - allegations by wife that gifts given to her husband and parents the time of marriage were misappropriated by them held, stridhana is absolute property of wife. husband has no control over it, but he may use it during of his distress. any gift made to.....orderj.s. verma, c.j., k. ramaswamy and b.n. kirpal, jj.1. in spite of our earlier order dated 26-3-1997, the appellant has not produced any material to indicate that the burden of the tax was not passed on to the consumers, so that the appellant could claim refund of the tax which was paid under protest on the basis of the judgment of this court in mafatlal industries ltd. v. union of india : 1997(89)elt247(sc) . in our opinion, this alone is sufficient to disentitle the appellant to claim the refund after the decision in mafatlal. 2. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Judgment:ORDER
J.S. Verma, C.J., K. Ramaswamy and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.
1. In spite of our earlier order dated 26-3-1997, the appellant has not produced any material to indicate that the burden of the tax was not passed on to the consumers, so that the appellant could claim refund of the tax which was paid under protest on the basis of the judgment of this Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) . In our opinion, this alone is sufficient to disentitle the appellant to claim the refund after the decision in Mafatlal.
2. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.