Allowed

M/S. Veekay Papers, Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. V.P. Filed on 07/12/95

Bombay HC13 Mar 2008WP/3749/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment reviews a writ petition regarding central excise duty classification. The court held that since the petitioner was previously found to have an alternative remedy, a writ petition was wrongly dismissed. To meet the ends of justice, the High Court set aside the Collector's order and directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The order date is treated as the starting point for limitat

What did the court decide?

Order of Collector of Central Excise set aside; petitioner directed to prefer appeal to appellate authority; date of this order treated as starting point for limitation.

M/S. Veekay Papers, Bombay and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. V.P. Filed on 07/12/95 — Bombay HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HVN

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 1995

¶3

 M/s. Veekay Papers and Anr. ... Petitioners
 Versus

¶4

 Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents

¶5

 Mr.P.K. Shetty for the Petitioners.

¶6

 Mr. R.V. Desai with Mr.A.S. Rao i/by
 H.P.Chaturvedi for Respondents.

¶7

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
DATED: MARCH 13, 2008
P.C.

¶8

 . Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶9

 . By order dated 1.11.1993 the subject goods were
 classified and duty was demanded from the Petitioners
 herein. The Petitioners aggrieved by that order,
 preferred Petition before this court being W.P. No.
 135 of 1994. That Petition was disposed of by this
 court by its order dated 3.2.1994. A direction was
 given to the Collector to dispose of the matter.

¶10

 . In pursuance to that direction, the Collector by his
 order dated 25.4.1994 proceeded to pass an order
 upholding the order of the Assistant Collector of
 Central excise. Petitioner aggrieved preferred a
 Petition befo9re the Court. The Petition was
 dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the Petitioner

¶11

 approached Supreme Court. The order of this court was
 set aside an the matter has been remanded back to this
 court.

¶12

 . Under Section 35(E)(2) the Commissioner of Central
 Excise in suo motu exercise of his powers could have

¶13

 called for the records and after satisfying himself as
 to the legality or propriety of any decision or order,
 direct such Authority or any Central Excise Officer to
 apply to Commissioner (Appeals) for determination of
 such points arising out of the decision or order, as
 may be specified by the Commissioner or Central Excise
 in his order.

¶14

 . In the instant case, the Petitioner against the
 order of Assistant Collector had remedy by way of
 appeal. Instead of seeking that remedy he approached
 this court where the direction was given. The
 Commissioner acted pursuant to direction of this court.
 The Petition filed was dismissed. However, considering
 that SLP filed was allowed and matter remanded back.
 In our opinion, the Petitioner herein really cannot be
 denied the remedy which otherwise should be entitled to
 in law more so as the writ petition by this court was
 dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner had
 alternative remedy.

¶15

 . In the light of the above, in our opinion, to meet
 the ends of justice, the order of the Collector of
 Central Excise is set aside. The petitioner is
 directed to prefer appeal to the appellate authority.
 Considering the factual position and the peculiar
 facts, we treat the date of passing of this order as
 date for the purpose of commencement of limitation for
 the Petitioner to file his appeal.

¶16

 . Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to
 costs.

¶17

 (R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I.REBELLO, J.)

M/S. Veekay Papers, Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. V.P. Filed on 07/12/95

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Veekay Papers, Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. V.P. Filed on 07/12/95

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

the commiossioner of income-tax central-ii,mum Vs m/s pallavi holdings p.ltd

The Commissioner Ofincome-Tax-Iii,Mum Vs M/S Excel Industries Ltd.

The Commissione of INCME-TAX-9,MUM Vs Shriram Constructionb P.Ltd

Vilas M. Pitale Vs Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cestat) and Anr.

M/S. Tata Power Company Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gopal Glass Works Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.