Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S. SWETHA ENGINEERING LIMITED versus THE CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s. Swetha Engineering Limited v. The Customs Excise and Gold - Writ Appeal No.478 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 195 (10 March 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 10/03/2005

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR. MARKANDEY KATJU, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN Writ Appeal No.478 of 2005

M/s. Swetha Engineering Limited

121/133 Tass Industrial Estate,

Ambattur,

Chennai-600 098. .. Appellant -Vs-

The Customs Excise and Gold

Control Appellate Tribunal,

Shastri Bhawan, I floor,

No.26, Haddows Road,

Chennai-600 006. .. Respondent Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order passed in Writ Petition No.15611 of 2001 dated 17.1.2005. For appellant : Mr. D. Trilokchand Chopra

For respondent: Mr. K.Veeraraghavan

Senior Central Govt.

Standing Counsel

:ORDER



(Judgment of the Court was delivered by

The Honourable The Chief Justice)

This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the learned single Judge dated 17.1.2005.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned single Judge shows that the Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the petitioner had passed an order directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) within three months and waived the balance duty payable and granted a stay of recovery of the balance amount till the disposal of the appeal. That order was challenged before the learned single Judge, but the petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had approached the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. That application was rejected by the BIFR but the appeal is pending before the AAIFR. He has submitted that the condition in the impugned order dated 17.1.2005 is in violation of Section 22 of the Act.

4. The matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Metal Box India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai, 2003 (155) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has held that payment of pre-deposit covered under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not fall under any of the enumerated categories in Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Hence the protection of Section 22 is not available. Following the said decision this writ appeal is dismissed. However one month further time is granted to the appellant from today to make the predeposit as directed by the Tribunal. No costs. W.A.M.P.No.864 of 2005 is dismissed.

Index:Yes.

Internet: Yes.

Vu




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.