Skip to content


Government of India and ors. Vs. Reichold Chemicals (India) Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.A. 452 of 1979 against W.P. No. 3374 of 1973
Judge
Reported in1986(24)ELT251(Mad)
ActsMadras General Sales Tax Act, 1939; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 10A
AppellantGovernment of India and ors.
RespondentReichold Chemicals (India) Ltd.
Advocates:M.N. Balasubramanian, Additional Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases ReferredChemical Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
- .....of 1973. admittedly, the demand was made by the appellants herein under rule 10-a of the central excise rules, 1944. equally admittedly, a bench of this court in chemical enterprises (p) ltd. v. the collector of central excise, madras and agarwal brothers, madras 1 v. union of india, represented by the joint secretary, ministry of finance, department of revenue and insurance, new delhi and two ors. (w.p. no. 268 of 1973 and 419 of 1970)-1973 t.l r. 2213 has struck down the above rules. the learned judge following the said bench decision has allowed the present writ petition.2. the learned counsel for the appellants contends that at the relevant time, there was a provision in the statute that the rules will have effect as if enacted in the statute and that aspect was not considered by.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Ismail, C.J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of Ramanujam, J., dated 4th November, 1977 allowing W.P. No. 3374 of 1973. Admittedly, the demand was made by the appellants herein under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Equally admittedly, a Bench of this Court in Chemical Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Agarwal Brothers, Madras 1 v. Union of India, represented by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, New Delhi and two Ors. (W.P. No. 268 of 1973 and 419 of 1970)-1973 T.L R. 2213 has struck down the above rules. The learned Judge following the said Bench decision has allowed the present writ petition.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that at the relevant time, there was a provision in the Statute that the rules will have effect as if enacted in the statute and that aspect was not considered by the Bench of this Court in the above cases and, therefore, on that ground we should admit the appeal.

3. It is not necessary for us to see whether the Bench has considered this aspect of the case on the earlier occasion or not as a Bench of this Court has rejected a similar contention concerning the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1939 in In re : M.P. Kumaraswami Raja 1955 16 S.T.C. 113. Under these circumstances, there is no ground to interefere with the orders of the learned Judge and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.


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