Allahabad Court January 1987 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Raja Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-05-1987
Reported in: 1987(14)ECC132
ORDER1. The dispute in this petition is for the recovery of excise duties for two years, i.e., 1976-77 and 1977-78. For the first year, the amount sought to be recovered is Rs. 500 whereas for the second it is Rs. 3036.88 (in respect of Garhia tobacco) and Rs. 523.75 in respect of stalk.2. To meet the demand of the year 1977-78 the petitioner stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition that he had obtained a certificate in Form T.P. 3 and on that account he is not liable to pay Rs. 3046.88. 3. Form T.P. 3 is a certificate for the transfer of unmanufactured goods on which excise duty has not been paid under Rules 31, 32 and 33. 4. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated:-- However, if the petitioner produce the proof of warehousing, the demand will be withdrawn against the said D.D.I, after due verification.5. The petitioner has filed the copy of the T.P. 3 certificate along with the writ petition. It will now be appropriate for the excise authority concerned to look t...
Mitter SaIn Industries, Through Its Managing Partner Smt. Sanjai JaIn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Jan-01-1987
Reported in: 1988(14)LC501(Allahabad)
Om Prakash, J.1. This writ petition arises from the order dated 30.5.1986 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the aforesaid Tribunal against he order dated 6.3 1986 of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Meerut (Annexure '1 'to the petition) imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- on the petitioner under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 As the petitioner failed to deposit the duty in cash, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the same within 8 weeks. petitionerThe contention of the petitioner, that a sum of Rs. 1,58,316 71 on account of the duty paid by them on input aluminium claimed to have been used in the manufacture of aluminium strips during the period September 1981 to April 1982 to the Assistant Collector, Meerut on 7.6.1982 refund-able from the Department and, therefore, the amount of duty to be paid with the appeal be adjusted was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner has fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›