The Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Panaji Division, Panaji, Goa v. Cadila Health Care Limited
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Appeal is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. This is an appeal filed by the Department. Learned Counsel for the Department fairly states that question No.1 which is a very 2 foundation of the claim has been answered by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Marmagao Steel Ltd., 2008(229) E.L.T.…
Judgment
Cause title
Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Asst. Solicitor General with
Ms. S. Linhares, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Gajendra Jain and Ms. R. Kamat, Advocates for the respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & N.A. BRITTO, J. Date : 15th July, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
(Per SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ.)
This is an appeal filed by the Department. Learned Counsel for the Department fairly states that question No.1 which is a very 2 foundation of the claim has been answered by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Marmagao Steel Ltd., 2008(229) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). Therein the question has been answered in favour of the assessee. We find no merit. Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm. ssm.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Companies Act, 2013.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 15 Jul 2009. The bench was N A BRITTO.
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.