Aeroflex Industries Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 10 Apr 2006
- Bench
- R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR
Provisions considered
- Central Excise Act, 1944 s. 210
Judgment
petitioner a company carries business manufacture allied products. It company stainless purchased Garg Sales Company Private Limited (respondent no.3) manufacturing stainless wires. As circular No.570/7/2001-CX 16th February, clarified drawing amounted ‘manufacture’ Section 210 Central Excise Act, 1944, petitioner 2001 Cenvat Credit against stainless purchased 2 respondent no.3 during relevant period. Circular 29th May, 2003, clarification earlier circular 16th February, Vide withdrawn. Now, Excise Department communication 10th November, 2004 petitioner Cenvat Credit amounting Rs.14,53,537/- availed them. The Circular 29th May, 2003 whereby earlier Circular February, 2001 has been withdrawn is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 2001 16th
By The impugned circular issued 29th May,
2003. filing petition February, 2006, circular sought afraid, petitioners cannot challenged. permitted We challenge the circular dated 29th May, 2003 after a gross delay of about 2 years 9 months.
Besides that we find no illegality in the circular dated 29th May, 2003.
More importantly, appears present petition, petitioners impugn criminal action initiated respondent no.3 against dishonour cheque Rs.16,32,993/- issued petitioner favour respondent no.3. The 3 petition, thus, actuated motive challenging criminal proceedings having initiated respondent no.3 against petitioner in the garb of challenge to the circular dated 29th May, 2003.
Writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. Dismissed in limine. (R.M. LODHA,J.) LODHA,J.) (R.M. (R.M. LODHA,J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.
(J.P. DEVADHAR,J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Excise Act, 1944 — s. 210.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 10 Apr 2006. The bench was R M LODHA, P DEVADHAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.