28 January 2009
Supreme Court
Download

MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Vs ASST.COMMNR.CENTRAL EXCISE GURGAON

Case number: C.A. No.-007259-007259 / 2002
Diary number: 12123 / 2002
Advocates: PRAMOD DAYAL Vs B. KRISHNA PRASAD


1

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL  No.7259 of 2002            

Maruti Udyog Ltd.  ....Appellant(s)

    Versus

Asst. Commnr. Central Excise Gurgaon & Ors. .....Respondent(s)

   WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.329 OF 2003

                      O R D E R 1.      Considering the insignificant nature of the claim we do not propose to  

interfere in these appeals.  The liability which has been found against the appellant  

herein is only for the amount of interest of Rs.6984/- and Rs. 15309/- respectively  

at the rate of 12%.   

2. Shri Raju Ramachandran learned senior counsel urges before us that,  

firstly, there could not be any liability found against the appellant as the appellant  

had,  in  fact,  filed  an  appeal  under  Section  35-L  of  the  Central  Excise  Act.  

According to him there is an incorrect reference in the impugned order that such  

appeal has not been filed.  It is true that the fact that the appeal was filed was  

pleaded but, probably, it was not pointed out to the National Commission at the  

time of arguments.  Be that as it may,  for the reason we have stated, we will not go  

into that issue.  

:2:

2

3.  Shri  Raju  Ramachandran  also  raises  another  point  regarding  the  

“deficiency in service” and urges that in the present circumstances it cannot be  

said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.  That  

question  unfortunately  has  not  been  raised  specifically  before  the  National  

Commission and therefore, we would not go into this question at this juncture.  

However,  we  leave  that  question  open  so  that  there  can  be  a  finding  on  the  

question at the proper stage and by the proper authority.

 4. With  these  observations,  we  dispose  of  the   appeals  but  without  any  

order as to costs.

  ................J.        [V.S. SIRPURKAR]   

                                   

.................J.                                                 [R.M.  LODHA]        NEW DELHI,      JANUARY 28, 2009.