Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2014 (11) TMI 780

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Petition arises in following background : 2.1 Petitioner is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical drugs. Petitioner's factory is located in GIDC, Kansari, Anand. Petitioner, in addition to manufacturing such drugs, under its own licence, also carries out manufacturing activities on loan licence basis. The issue of excisability, in the present case, arises in two angles. The clearances made by the petitioner of the drugs manufactured on loan licences should also be clubbed with his own clearances for ascertaining the limit for the purpose of small scale industry exemptions. Second issue pertains to the question whether the unit of the petitioner can be stated to be located in a rural area, industry of the petitioner is being located in GI....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, can be condoned only up to a certain period and not beyond, the Commissioner in not entertaining the petitioner's appeal, committed no error. Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner had, all along, filed appeals against orders passed before and after the Order-in-Original impugned in this petition. It was simply because due to some lapse, copy of this order should not be traced. Therefore, appeal could not be presented. In that view of the matter, even in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we would not be justified in directing the Commissioner to do otherwise. Therefore, at the petitioners challenge confining to the Commissioner's view of not entertaining the appeal on merits, he would have summ....