Madhya Pradesh Court June 2002 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.
Rishabh Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC815; 2002(4)MPHT89
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally on merits.2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of the order dated 26-3-2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by CEGAT in an appeal filed by the petitioner. In view of the limited issue involved in the writ, it is not necessary to take note of detail facts of this case except to mention those which alone are material to decide the issue involved in the writ.3. Petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of a commodity as Grey Filter Cloth under the Excise Act. It is classified under Chapter 59 and is chargeable to duty at the rate of 15% advalorem.4. On 10-2-1998, a vehicle belonging to petitioner carrying certain goods was seized by the sleuths of Central Excise Department. In the search, it was found that the goods which were being transported were found as filter fabric, liable to duty under Chapter 59 (sub-heading 5911.40), since no duty was paid nor any document wa...
Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. Vs. C.C. and C. Ex.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2004(165)ELT4(MP)
ORDERArun Mishra, J. 1. In these two writ petitions, the final order dated January 18th, 2001 (in W.P. 856/2001) and order dated 9-2-2001 (in W.P. No. 1595/2001) passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, have been challenged directly in writ petitions on the ground that the appeal provided under Section 25F of the Central Excise and Customs Act before the Appellate Tribunal is an onerous remedy because before filing appeal, duty adjudged without jurisdiction will have to be deposited. The orders are challenged on the ground that they are without jurisdictions. The show cause notices which are basis of passing of final orders and the final orders are without jurisdiction.2. First the relevant facts in W.P. No. 856/2001 be noticed. Petitioner submits that the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mumbai and factory at Mandideep, District Raisen, M.P. The petitioner-company is engaged in manufacture...
R.D. Aherwar Vs. Special Police Establishment and ors.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2616; 2003(1)MPLJ203
ORDERArun Mishra, J.1. The petitioner seeks the relief to quash the prosecution of the petitioner in special case No. 9/98 and further seeks to quash the sanction for prosecution Annexure P.3 pending before Special Judge, Bhopal, against the petitioner for offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B and 37 of the IPC.2. The petitioner alleges that he was Additional Secretary on 11th August, 1995. An order was passed by the former Minister Shri B.R. Yadav exempting 7.50 acres of land to the land owners from scheme No. 54 of the Indore Development Authority. The petitioner was present during the hearing of the parties on 20-2-97 held by former Minister, Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh and recorded the minutes as per the order of the Minister and communicated such decision vide letter dated 24-2-97. The petitioner submitted a proposal on 28-2-1997 to the Secretary that the compliance of directions issued by the State Go...
Rubber Products Vs. Cegat and anr.
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC12
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Heard finally with consent of both the counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved in this writ is heard and decided along with this writ by me in W.P. No. 2487 of 2000.1, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat those very facts and legal submissions while disposing of this writ, as it will result in duplication of the same reasoning in this writ, as well. This Court has dealt with the submissions argued and dismissed the writ but with some observations. 3. In substance the issue sought to be raised in this writ, is whether the Tribunal (CEGAT) was justified in partly rejecting the application made by the petitioner for deposit of duty/penalty amount impugned in appeal. The Tribunal while entertaining the appeal called upon the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total dues towards duty and a sum of Rs. One lakh towards penalty. It is further observed that failure to deposit will result in dismissal of appeal itself. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner...
Dayal Laminates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cegat and Cce
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jun-24-2002
Reported in: 2002(83)ECC819
ORDERA.M. Sapre, J.1. Heard finally with consent of both the counsel for the parties. 2. The issue involved in this writ is heard and decided along with this writ by me in W.P. No. 2487 of 2000. I, therefore, do not consider it necessary to repeat those very facts and legal submissions while disposing of this writ, as it will result in duplication of the same reasoning in this writ; as well. This Court has dealt with the submissions argued and dismissed the writ but with some observations. 3. In substance the issue sought to be raised in this writ, is whether the Tribunal (CEGAT) was justified in partly rejecting the application made by the petitioner for deposit of duty/penalty amount impugned in appeal. The Tribunal while entertaining the appeal and stay called upon the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total dues towards duty and a sum of Rs. one lakh towards penalty. It is further observed that failure to deposit will result in dismissal of appeal itself. 4. Learned Counsel for the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›