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. CHAUDHARANA STEELS (P) LTD. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

Decided
8 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 562 · 2009 INSC 776
Also cited as
  • (2009) 15 SCC 183 (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 1 other Supreme Court judgment 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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

In this appeal the only ~ question that arises for consideration is whether there is power for condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 35of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). By judgment delivered in Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, Noicja v. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Naida (2008 (3) SCC 73) it was helq that the High Court has no power to condone delay in seeking reference under Section 35-H of the Act. Doubting correctness of the view reference was made to larger Bench. By judgment dated 27.3.2009 a three-judge Bench in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise ~: Mis. Hongo India (P) Ltd. & Anr. 2009 (4) SCALE 374 concurred with the view t~ken by the two-judge Bench in Punjab Fibres case (supra). The decision has full application to the present case also.

p. 563, margin A

2

That being so this appeal deserves to be dismissed · which we direct. No costs. N.J Appeal dismissed.

p. 563, margin D