Skip to content


Hukumchand Amolikchand Logde Vs. Madhava Balaji Potdar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 788 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC540; 1983(1)SCALE707; 1984(Supp)SCC600
AppellantHukumchand Amolikchand Logde
RespondentMadhava Balaji Potdar and anr.
Excerpt:
- central excise act, 1944. section 4(4)(d)(ii): [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] assessable value held, loading charges collected by assessee has to be treated as cum-duty price. assessee is entitled to the benefit of abatement for excise duty payable on such loading charges. - bhasme, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly conceded that the high court was in error in not examining the revision petition of the appellants on merits on the short ground that the appellants had failed to deposit the rent. the high court was in error in dismissing the revision petition on account of failure of the appellants to deposit some rent which had become due......the high court was granted. ex-parte ad interim stay of execution was granted subject to notice of motion being taken. the matter is listed to-day for confirmation of ex-parte ad-interim stay.2. mr. s.b. bhasme, learned counsel for the respondents, fairly conceded that the high court was in error in not examining the revision petition of the appellants on merits on the short ground that the appellants had failed to deposit the rent. this was an untenable ground and it was so conceded by mr. bhasme, revision petition once admitted has to be disposed of on merits. the high court was in error in dismissing the revision petition on account of failure of the appellants to deposit some rent which had become due. therefore, the order of the high court dismissing the revision petition is.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Petition for special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court was granted. Ex-parte ad interim stay of execution was granted subject to notice of motion being taken. The matter is listed to-day for confirmation of ex-parte ad-interim stay.

2. Mr. S.B. Bhasme, learned Counsel for the respondents, fairly conceded that the High Court was in error in not examining the revision petition of the appellants on merits on the short ground that the appellants had failed to deposit the rent. This was an untenable ground and it was so conceded by Mr. Bhasme, Revision petition once admitted has to be disposed of on merits. The High Court was in error in dismissing the revision petition on account of failure of the appellants to deposit some rent which had become due. Therefore, the order of the High Court dismissing the revision petition is liable to be set aside. It is no use of keeping the matter pending here. Therefore, we set aside the order of the High Court dismissing the revision petition of the appellants and remit the matter to the High Court to hear the revision petition on merits as early as possible. On account of the very fair attitude adopted by Mr. Bhasme, learned Counsel for the respondents, we make no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //