1974 (11) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or of Central Excise, Hyderabad Division, Panjagutta. Under that order, the respondent confirmed the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Secunderabad, dated 17-4-1972 demanding duty on all the powerlooms installed by the petitioner and the firm M/s. P. Balaji Rao Sons in the same premises treating them as having been installed by the same individual for the purpose of levy of excise d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gued that M/s. P. Balaji Rao Sons and the other four partners in the firm, namely, his wife and three sons including the petitioner are members of a joint Hindu family and therefore, the partnership property should be a jurisdic person. Therefore, the petitioner s interest in the four powerlooms of the partnership cannot be taken into consideration for purposes of levying additional duty on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... petitioner but it is having eight powerlooms. If that is so, the firm also would be liable to pay higher excise duty on the basis of having more than four powerlooms. That all depends on whether the firm is having four powerlooms as contended by the petitioner or eight powerlooms as contended by the respondent. With this observation, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 3. Apart from t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X