1991 (8) TMI 113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rned single Judge in WP No. 10415 of 1985, [Raghavendra Enterprises by Managing Partner, B. Singh, Madras-1 v. Union of India by its Secretary (Excise) Ministry of Finance, North Block New Delhi & Others] disposed of alongwith other Writ Petitions. The petitioner in the Writ Petition is the appellant in this Writ Appeal. The respondents in the writ petition are the respondents in this Writ Appeal.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould become ineligible to claim the refund. Rulings rendered by Benches of this Court were taken note of by the learned single Judge on this question. The learned single Judge opined that the question as to whether the petitioner has passed on the excise duty to its consumers is a controversial one, which cannot be adjudicated upon by him in writ powers and in this view, the learned single Judge d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. N. Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the view that if the excise duty had been passed on to its consumers, the petitioner would become ineligible to claim the refund is not tenable in the light of pronouncements other than those relied on by the learned single Judge, and in view of the opinion expressed by the learned single Judge on the legal question, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rst Appellate Authority has gone against the petitioner and now the matter is before the second Appellate Authority, namely, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras. Mr. N. Venkataraman, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the question cannot be treated as stare decisis and one of us (Nainar Sundaram, J.) taking note of the conflicting views expressed in the pron....