Andhra Pradesh Court April 1982 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.
Srinivasa Cement Works Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Niza ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-07-1982
Reported in: 1983LC2100(AP)
Madhava Reddy, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order of the 1st respondent demanding payment of Rs. 56,300-91 ps. in DOR No. 67/80 CE.(PF) dated 4/6.3.1982. The petitioner is a partnership firm which started manufacturing R.C.C. spun pipes of different dimensions from 1.3.1979. It is the case of the petitioner that it is not aware that R.C C. spun pipes are liable for excise control even in the case of a small scale industry with a turnover of less than Rs. 30,00,000/- and covered by notification 89-79 dated 1.3.1979. Having subsequently come to know of that fact, it gave a declaration in the prescribed form which was found to be defective and the same was returned. After it was re-submitted and the matter was pending consideration, and before the declaration was acccepted and the licence granted, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.8.1980 calling upon it to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for the contravention of the Rules and why duty sho...
Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Paras ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh
Decided on: Apr-05-1982
Reported in: 1983(12)ELT328(AP)
1. This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the learned standing counsel for the Central Govt. against the order passed by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The case mainly rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 5, P.W. 2 the Customs Officer deposed that he seized contraband articles from premises which is said to have been let out to one Kanthilal & Company. However the accused was arrested on 5-3-1974 though the seizure was on 4-3-1974. It is not established as to how the accused could be said to have been in possession of these articles. Some of the witnesses turned hostile, particularly the panch witnesses. Ultimately it is only the evidence of P.W. 2 that remains. Even his evidence does not clearly establish as to how the accused is connected with Kanthilal & Company to show the premises was let out. The entire case rests only on the confessional statement of the accused said to have been made to P.W. 2 which is retracted. Therefore this evidence cannot form the basis f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›