Disposed

Shapoorji Palloji and Co. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2006WP/1595/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Citizens sought writ against a show cause notice regarding excise duty liability. The High Court directed respondent authorities to conclude the pending adjudication within four months and stayed the demand until then, keeping substantive contentions open for appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.3 to conclude adjudication within four months; stay on demand; petitioners to appear on 3rd April, 2006.

Shapoorji Palloji and Co. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.1595 OF 1999

¶4

 Shapoorji Pallonji & Company

¶5

 Limited & Others .. Petitioners.

¶6

 V/s.

¶7

 Union of India & Others .. Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.J.F. Pochkhanwala, senior counsel with Ms.Rohini
 Shelke i/b.M/s.Humranwala & Co. for the petitioners.

¶9

 Mr.S.M. Shah with Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for the
 respondents.

¶10

 CORAM : R.M. LODHA &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶11

 DATED : 16TH MARCH, 2006.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

 The petitioners approached this Court by

¶14

 filing this writ petition in challenging the show
 cause notice-cum-demand dated 8th March, 1999. It is
 admitted position before us that in view of the
 interim order passed by this Court, no adjudication
 order has been made by the authorities pursuant to
 the show cause notice.

¶15

 2. In our considered view it would be in the

¶16

 fitness of things if the respondent No.3 adjudicates
 the matter pursuant to the show cause notice dated

¶17

 8th March, 1999 issued to the petitioners. It is
 only in the adjudication proceedings it would be

¶18

¶19

 decided whether during the period from 1st March,
 1997, the petitioners were rightly called upon to pay
 excise duty on the ready mix concrete or they were
 not liable to pay excise duty in respect of concrete
 mix prepared by them at their customers site as is
 the petitioners case.

¶20

 3. We, accordingly, feel that the diverse
 contentions raised in the writ petition need not be
 examined by us and it would be proper if the
 respondent No.3 concludes the adjudication
 proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice.

¶21

 4. Hence, the order :

¶22

 i) The respondent No.3 shall conclude
 the adjudication proceedings pursuant to the
 show cause notice dated 8th March, 1999 as
 early as possible and preferably within four
 months from the date of appearance of the
 petitioners.

¶23

 ii) The petitioners shall appear before
 the respondent No.3 on 3rd April, 2006.

¶24

 iii) Until the adjudication proceedings
 are concluded, no demand as set out in the

¶25

¶26

 notice dated 8th March, 1999 shall be raised.

¶27

 iv) We record and accept the statement

¶28

 made on behalf of the respondents that the
 adjudication proceedings shall only relate to
 the period post 1st March, 1997.

¶29

 v) All contentions raised in the writ
 petition are kept open to be agitated in the
 appropriate proceedings.

¶30

 5. No costs.

¶31

 (R.M. LODHA, J.)

¶32

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Shapoorji Palloji and Co. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shapoorji Palloji and Co. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Boc India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Ratna Kala Exports Vs the Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Uma Corpn. Vs Krishna Prabhakar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central CIRCLE-2, Mumbai and Anr.

Gamnon India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sohanbhai Soni Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Vinodbhai Patel Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.