Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR

Decided
24 February 2005
Judges listed
S.N. VARIAVA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2005] 2 S.C.R. 398 · 2005 INSC 103

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee under section 35L(b) of the Central.Excise Act, l 944 is whether in the event of the silver chloride being declared "excisable goods", the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2.4.1986.

p. 399, margin B

In view of our judgment in the conjoint civil appeal No. 430 of 2000 in the case of the same assessee holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of silver chloride produced in the factory of the assessee, during the relevant period(s), the question of applicability of the said notification during" that period has become academic. In future, if the department succeeds in proving that silver chloride produced .in the factory of the assessee as "excisable goods" in terms of manufacture and marketability and if the assessee intends to take the l;>enefit of the said notification, then, the question is kept open and the decision given by the tribunal herein will not preclude the assessee from relying on the above notification in accordance with law.

p. 399, margin C

Subject to above, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to co5ts. R.P. Appeal disposed of.

p. 399, margin E