Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.RIVONA INDU.LIMITED, versus COUST..EXCISE & SER.TAX APPL & ORS

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.RIVONA INDU.LIMITED, v COUST..EXCISE & SER.TAX APPL & ORS - CW Case No. 1534 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 1496 (26 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

M/s. Rivona Industries Ltd. VS. The Customs, Excise & Service

Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1534/2007

Under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 26th March, 2007.

Date of Order :

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK

Mr Anand Purohit for petitioner.

BY THE COURT:- (Per Hon'ble Mr. Rajesh Balia, J.)

Having heard learned counsel for the petiotioner, we are of the opinion that no case of interfernce is made out in the order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New

Delhi dated 5th December, 2006 by which the Tribunal has granted interim order waving 50% of excise duty levied against him for the purpose of pre-requisite of hearing of the appeal, inter alia, on the ground that shortage of the goods noticed by the preventive staff during the visit to their premises has been admitted and on above aspect, the matter is to be examined. Thus, the order passed by the Tribunal is founded on relevant consideration and reasonable premise.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.4153/2005 (Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) decided on 20.01.2006.

However, as per the order relied on by the petitioner the Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merit with the pre-condtion of deposit of 50% of the Excise Duty, which had already been deposited by the petitioner in terms of the direction issued by this Court at interim stage. In the present matter, the petitioner has been granted interim order waving depositing of 50% of duty due against him as pre-condition. On that premise, the order passed by the Tribunal is in line with the order relied on by the petitioner. Hence, the said order does not assist the petitioner.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, if the petitioner deposit the amount, his appeal be decided as far as possible within two months thereafter. [ SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. vijayant


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.