Madhya Pradesh Court January 2000 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.
Ratlam Wires Private Limited Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(71)ECC400; 2000(120)ELT71(MP)
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. All these writ petitions are being decided by a common order because these petitions are being decided on strictly question of law.2. In contest Sarvashri G.M. Chaphekar, sr. counsel instructed by SS Samvatsar, Masani, SM Kolhi with Sanjay Kolhi, AM Mathor, sr. counsel instructed by B. Pandya, AP Patankar, Ashutosh Upadhyay, have been heard for petitioners. Shri BG Neema, standing counsel for Union of India and other respondents have been heard in context with the record of writ petitions.3. All these petitions are being heard at this stage by issuing rule and by consent, the rule returnable forthwith. By consent, all these writ petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal, in the interest of justice.4. All the advocates placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Velcord Textiles v. Union of India reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 351 (Bom.) (a Division Bench judgment) where the High Court of Bombay held - 'Even if the commissioner...
Neo Sack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner (Appeals) C. Ex.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-03-2000
Reported in: 2000(119)ELT522(MP)
ORDERJ.G. Chitre, J.1. Both these petitions are being decided by a common order because these petitions are being decided strictly on question of law.2. Shri I.C. Upadhyay, counsel for petitioner. Shri B.G. Neema, standing counsel for respondents.3. These petitions are being heard at this stage by issuing rule and by consent, the rule returnable forthwith. By consent, these petitions are taken up for hearing and final disposal, in the interest of justice.4. Both the advocates placed reliance on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Velcord Textiles v. Union of India reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 351 (Bom) (a Division Bench judgment) where the High Court of Bombay held -'Even if the commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Act is dealing with the matter reflecting around provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as Act for convenience) is duty bound to apply judicial mind, giving the reasons justifying the conclusion made to be eitherway.'5...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›