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

I.T.C. LIMITED versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

Decided
26 August 1996
Judges listed
J.S. VERMA, B.N. KIRPAL (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 214 · 1996 INSC 945
Also cited as
  • (1996) 5 SCC 538 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

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.

The points raised in this appeal are covered squarely against the appellant by the decision of this Court in Mis. Pankaj Jain Agencies v. Union of India and Others, [1994] 5 SCC 198, wherein it was emphatically stated as under :

p. 214, margin E

'We, therefore, se(~ no substance in the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore, the notification did not acquire the eiements of operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Shri Ganesh is unacceptable."

p. 214, margin F

(Para 18) We may also observe that rejection by the Tribunal of the appellant's case. even on the admitted position that on the very date of issue of notification there was a radio announcement about the changes brought about by these notifications; and also a press release is another ground to justify rejection of the appellant's claim. Accordingly, there is no ground to admit the appeal.

pp. 214–215, margin G

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.

p. 215, margin B