THE GENERAL MA1 v. THE COMMISSIONER OP CENTRAL EXCISE
Judgment
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAGARAJ jfETITIOQSO6722QO BETWEEN: THE GENERAL MA1NAGER BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEI) GULBARGA. (By Sri. SHARAD KUMAR PUJARI. ADY) ... PETITIONER AND: THE COMMISSIONER OP CENTRAL EXCISE AN 1) CUSTOMSIAPPEALS) BANCALORE RESPON DENT By Sri, /Smt ARC HPNA P TIWARL Acid; .Soiicltor General) THIS ITHIT PETITION IS EILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & °“ OP —{E rr)yc’r1T TICOv P r:j)IA PP?\VTrfç TO QuASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANu COMMISS1.ON ER. CENTRAL EXCISE.. BELU.AUM.IN FIt:E C.NOJV/ 1 1/65/94/STAT DATED UNDE.R ORDER NO. 11/98 AS PER .ANNEXIJRE A’ AID ORDER PT A T-U_
24.08.1998 .A’O ‘CZf .J ) ‘Z a a A A Nrz’’-’T T[)TE’ — ‘I S 1 - fl A CZC’ r’rA t)\T •‘T’T ‘IJA k::iThr ,_) 1 /AAA fl’A C —‘ / CENTRAL EXO SE ANI) (l .IflMS 1\PPE \LS) BANGALORE í5 \VELL AS ORDER IN APPEAl NO ST/COD/308/07: S1/5/2001 DXILL) 5.10,2009 \VlH( 1115 l \\\EX[ RE i PASSED Bi FIlE (‘ESIAF BANGAIflRF THIS WET F PET1TIO\ t OM1N \ EOP ORDERS TI IN DAN. \IANJI [A (‘1-iELLlRT.. MADE [HE FOl.LOWING ORDER i—leard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned As—istan Sohiitor General. ‘mt Archana P. Tiwari. lii view of the statutory app€ I p1 ovided under sect1on 35 of the Ser jee Fax c t II he erdei orns, Excise & Sit A e rnal. tlis nri’ r is HOt mcUflt I iir&1
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.