Andhra Pradesh High Court
CEA/55/2006 of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD on 8 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3575] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 55/2006 Between: 1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI COMMISSIONERATE, 9-86/
APHC010231212006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 55/2006
Between:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUPATI COMMISSIONERATE, 9-86/A, BEHINE WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, MR PALLI ROAD,
...APPELLANT AND
1. M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, Guntakal M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Guntakal depot, Aluru Road, Guntakal - 585 102.
...RESPONDENT CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Present:- Mr. Y.N. Vivekananda, Advocate for
appellant.
Mr. Sakthi Niranjan Guptha, Advocate
represented Mr. G.V.S. Ganesh TOM,
for respondent. ******
LISA GILL,J.
1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 25.08.2005.
2. Learned counsel for respondent points out that question as involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of respondent. Question which arose for consideration in the appeal before learned Tribunal was as to whether a registered dealer of goods is liable to pay duty under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. One of the appeals i.e., CEA.No.77 of 2006 arising out of common order dated 25.08.2005, it is informed, was withdrawn in view of low tax effect.
3. Learned counsel for appellant fairly states that the matter is indeed covered against appellant, in view of judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2002 (146) ELT 646 (TRI-DEL). It is further submitted that order passed by learned Tribunal in Bharat Petroleum (referred supra), which has relied upon by learned Tribunal in impugned order, has been upheld by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above mentioned case.
4. Keeping in view the admitted position as above, question of law, as involved in this appeal, is decided against appellant and in favour of respondent. Therefore, order dated 25.08.2005 is upheld and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE
(NINALA JAYASURYA) JUDGE
Date: 09.04.2026 ANS
HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 55/2006 Date: 09.04.2026. ANS