Central excise duty liability dispute: appellant sought relief despite binding precedent; no distinguishing grounds, appeal dismissed without costs. The dominant issue was whether the appeal could succeed despite a binding SC precedent governing the same legal question. Applying the ratio in an earlier ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Central excise duty liability dispute: appellant sought relief despite binding precedent; no distinguishing grounds, appeal dismissed without costs.
The dominant issue was whether the appeal could succeed despite a binding SC precedent governing the same legal question. Applying the ratio in an earlier SC decision on central excise liability, the Court treated the precedent as conclusive and found no legal basis to distinguish it or grant relief. Consequently, the civil appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
In view of the binding precedent in *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise* [1995 (77) E.L.T. 256 (S.C.) = 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 45], the Court dismissed the civil appeal. The order rests entirely on the application of that earlier judgment, treating it as determinative of the issues raised and leaving no basis to grant relief to the appellant. The Court held: "In view of the judgment of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise ..., the Civil Appeal is dismissed." No costs were awarded: "There shall be no orders as to costs."
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
