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

..... rection quashing the order dated 20-6-1972 of the Assistant Director 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 in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... K. Satyanand, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has, however, argued 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndent that the firm is having not four powerlooms as contended by the 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 observa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X