Supreme Court of India
M/S FARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
- Decided
- 17 January 2007
- Judges listed
- AR. LAKSHMANAN, V.S. SIRPURKAR
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1093 · 2007 INSC 54
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.
Heard Mr.A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
p. 1093, margin G
We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.
p. 1093, margin G
The learned senior counsel for th~ appellant at the· time of hearing relied upon the Judgment in Mis.Craft Interiors Pvt.Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr. reported in (2006] 11 SCALE 78 and in particular paragraph 17 of the said Judgment. In view of the above Judgment, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai requires re-consideration. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- III for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
p. 1094, margin A
Both parties are at liberty to place additional' documents before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III. R.P. Appear allowed:
p. 1094, margin B