Amines & Plasticizers Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
EmailAppeal: R.P. (C) No. 1316 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16890 of 1996 with R.P. (C) No. 1320 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16894 of 1996 with R.P. (C) No. 1324 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16885 of 1996,
Petitioner: Amines & Plasticizers Ltd. and Another
Respondent: Union of India and Others
Apeal: R.P. (C) No. 1316 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16890 of 1996 with R.P. (C) No. 1320 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16894 of 1996 with R.P. (C) No. 1324 of 1997 in C.A. No. 16885 of 1996,
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 03, 1997
Head Note:
Constitution
Art 136, 142. Review – Appeals dismissed in view of Mafat Lal Industries Case (JT 1998 (4) SC 747) – Claim of refund of addi-tional excise duties involved – Said question not considered in Mafat Lal Industries Case Held that review is allowed and appeals are restored.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In these review petitions the respondents are seeking review of the orders dated 4-2-1997 passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 16885, 16890 and 16984 of 1996 filed by the Union of India whereby the said appeals have been allowed in accordance with the decision in Mafatla Industries v. Union of India.(JT 1996 (11) SC 283) The learned counsel for the respondents in support of the review petitions has submitted that in these matters refund has been claimed in respect of additional excise duty paid in respect of goods produced for captive consumption and that the question of refund in such cases has not been considered in Mafatlal Indus-tries and the matter is pending consideration before this Court. In the circumstances, the review petitions are allowed, the orders under review are set aside and the civil appeals are restored. List the civil appeals along with civil appeal number of which will be supplied by the counsel for the review petition-ers. No costs.
1. In these review petitions the respondents are seeking review of the orders dated 4-2-1997 passed in Civil Appeals Nos. 16885, 16890 and 16984 of 1996 filed by the Union of India whereby the said appeals have been allowed in accordance with the decision in Mafatla Industries v. Union of India.(JT 1996 (11) SC 283) The learned counsel for the respondents in support of the review petitions has submitted that in these matters refund has been claimed in respect of additional excise duty paid in respect of goods produced for captive consumption and that the question of refund in such cases has not been considered in Mafatlal Indus-tries and the matter is pending consideration before this Court. In the circumstances, the review petitions are allowed, the orders under review are set aside and the civil appeals are restored. List the civil appeals along with civil appeal number of which will be supplied by the counsel for the review petition-ers. No costs.
