REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BARAMATI GRAPE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SIR BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY V. PROVINCE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
RALLA RAM V. PROVINCE OF EAST PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
UNITED GLASS,BANGALORE V. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED TO]
TWYFORD TEA COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
P N KAUSHAL LAXMI NARAIN SHAM LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BOMBAY TYRE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UJAGAR PRINTS II KWALITY SILK MILLS CO VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CENTURY MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESHWARA THEATRE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CABLE COMPANY LIMITED CALCUTTA VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
GOODRICKE GROUP LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SACHCHIDANAND KISHORE PRASAD SINHA [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAMINATES PVT LIMITED OTHERS VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN MEAKIN LIMITED VS. EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER H P [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR DISTILLERY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that they are engaged in the manufacture, inter alia, of potable liquor and have their distilleries situated at various places. They manufacture the liquor under the licenses issued to them under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Prohibition Act) and carry on manufacturing activity. By filing the present petitions, they are challenging the legality and constitutional validity of (1) Maharashtra Ordinance No. XII of 1996 dated 4th September, 1996, (ii) Notification No. ARM/1096/21/2/exe. dated 13th September 1996, (iii) Maharashtra Potable Liquor (Fixation of Maximum Retail Prices) Rules, 1996 (M. R. P. Rules) and (iv) Circular No. CSE 1096/arm/ (96-97) I (E) dated 30th October, 1996.

(2.) BY the impugned Ordinance, Explanation to section 105 of the Prohibition Act is substituted. Section 105 and the substituted explanation reads as under :

(3.) FURTHER, by Notification dated 13th September, 1996, the State Government has directed that with effect from 1st January, 1997, the excise duty or countervailing duty, as the case may be, shall be imposed on excisable articles specified in column (2) of the Schedule appended thereto at the rates specified in column (3) thereof if such excisable articles are --

Click here to view full judgment.

BARAMATI GRAPE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address