Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution
Provisions considered
- Central Excise Act, 1944
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 265
Judgment
WP No. 13513 of 2002IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04-04-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTHANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPANWP No. 13513 of 2002AND WP NO. 13514 OF 20021. Kansai Nerolacl Paints Ltd.,142, Thiruporur High Road, Perungudi, Chennai. 96. Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Assistant Commissioner OfCentral Excise Chrompet Dvn Chennai-182.The Commissioner Of CentralExcise(appeals)121 Mahatama Gandhi Salai Chenbnai-343.Union Of IndiaRep By The Secry To Govt Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance New DelhiRespondent(s)WP No. 13514 of 20021. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 13513 of 2002 Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Assistant Commissioner OfCentral Excise Chrompet Dvn Chennai-182.The Commissioner Of CentralExcise(appeals)121 Mahatama Gandhi Salai Chenbnai-343.Union Of IndiaRep By The Secry To Govt Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance New DelhiRespondent(s)WP No.
13513 of 2002PRAYERTo call for the records in the files of the 1st respondent herein, in Order No.51/2001 dated 29.01.2002 . So for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable High Court may be pleased to call for the records on the files of issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ Order, or Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, quashing the orders of the 1st respondent herein, in Order No.51/2001 dated 29.01.2002, or pass such further or others, as may be deemed fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.WP No. 13514 of 2002PRAYERTo issue a Writ of Declaration, or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, declaring the words, Explanation -When inputs or capital goods are removed from the factory, the manafacturer of the final products shall pay the appropriate duty of excise leviable thereon as if such inputs or capital goods have been manufactured in the said factory, in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.
Operative part
13513 of 2002 Rule 57AB(1)(b), in the Central Excise Rules, 1944, inserted by notification 27/2000 C.E.(N.T) 31.03.2000 as ultra vires, and repugnant to the Central Excise Act, 1944. and violative of the Article 265 of the Constitution of India, in relation to the levy of excise duty, on imputs cleared, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, or pass such further or other orders, as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.WP No. 13513 of 2002 For Petitioner(s):No Appearance For The PetitionerFor Respondent(s):No Appearance For The RespondentsCOMMON ORDER(Order of the Court was made by Anita Sumanth J.)This matter had come up for hearing on 27.03.2025 when the petitioner was called absent. Hence, it was directed to be listed today under the caption 'for dismissal', when also, the petitioner is called absent. Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution.
No costs. (ANITA SUMANTH J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.)sl04-04-2025Index: NoSpeaking orderInternet: YesNeutral Citation: Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 13513 of 2002ANITA SUMANTH J.ANDC.KUMARAPPAN J.slWP Nos. 13513 & 13514 of 2002To1.The Assistant Commissioner OfCentral Excise Chrompet Dvn Chennai-182.The Commissioner Of CentralExcise(appeals)121 Mahatama Gandhi Salai Chenbnai-343.Union Of IndiaRep By The Secry To Govt Department Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance New DelhiWP No. 13513 of 2002AND WP NO. 13514 OF 200204-04-2025
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, these Writ Petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Central Excise Act, 1944; Constitution of India — arts. 226, 265.
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.