{"id":187052,"date":"1996-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996"},"modified":"2015-09-17T16:12:59","modified_gmt":"2015-09-17T10:42:59","slug":"ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 199, \t JT 1996 (5)\t313<\/div>\n
Author: K Paripoornan<\/div>\n
Bench: Paripoornan, K.S.(J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nM\/S. ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t02\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\nBENCH:\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 199\t  JT 1996 (5)\t313\n 1996 SCALE  (4)646\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t  THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 1996
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Hon’ble Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy
\n\t  Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.S.Paripoornan
\nR.F.Nariman, Sr.Adv. and K.J.John, Adv. with him for the
\nappellant
\nN.K.Bajpai, V.K.Verma and S.D.Sharma, Advs. for the
\nRespondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nThe following Order of the Court was delivered:
\nM\/s. Elpro International Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
V.\n<\/p>\n
Collector of Central Excise, Pune
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nPARIPOORNAN. J.\n<\/p>\n
     Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The appellants  are  applicants  in  Misc.\t Orders\t No.
\n04\/95-A and  205\/95-A before  the Customs,  Excise and\tGold
\n(Control) Appellate  Tribunal (hereinafter  referred  to  as
\n‘the CEGAT’),  New Delhi  Special Bench\t ‘A’. This appeal by
\nspecial leave  is filed against the majority decision of the
\nCEGAT dated  5.9.1995 in  the said  proceedings holding that
\nthe application\t for rectification  of mistake, in the facts
\nand circumstances, can be heard by a Bench consisting of two
\nMembers, as constituted by the President for the purpose.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The  appellant   is  engaged   in\tthe  manufacture  of
\ncomponents and\tparts of  X-Ray machines. A special Bench of
\nthree Members of the CEGAT passed final order Nos. 7 & 8\/91-
\nA dated\t December 18,  1990\/January 8,\t1991  remanding\t the
\nmatter to  the Collector for examining whether the appellant
\nand another  company (IGE)  is a  related Person. The appeal
\nfiled from  the said order of CEGAT under Section 35L of the
\nAct is pending before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
4.   An\t order\tof  rectification  was\tpassed\tby  a  Bench
\ncomprising of  three Members  directing the rectification of
\nthe final  order, in ROM No. E\/ROM\/14\/91-A in E\/1500\/88-A. A
\ndirection was given to recall the final order. The appellant
\nfiled  further\trectification  applications  being  ROM\t No.
\nE\/ROM\/06\/93-A and  E\/ROM\/42\/93-A. The above two applications
\ncame up\t before a  Bench of  the Tribunal  consisting of two
\nMembers.  The  appellant  raised  the  plea  that  the\tsaid
\nrectification applications  could not  be heard\t by a  Bench
\ncomprising of  less than three Members since the final order
\nin the\tappeal as  also the earlier rectification order were
\npassed by  a Bench comprising of three Members. The Tribunal
\nby a majority (2:1) repelled the said plea and held that the
\napplications for  rectification of  mistake in the facts and
\ncircumstances, can  be heard  by a  Bench of  two Members as
\nconstituted by the President for the purpose. The said order
\nis assailed in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
5.   We heard counsel. It is seen that the final order dated
\n8.1.1991 in  the appeals was passed by a Bench consisting of
\nthree Members  – Shri  I.J.  Rao,  Technical  Member  (since
\nretired), Ms.  S.V. Maruthi, Judicial Member (since elevated
\nto Andhra  Pradesh High\t court) and  Sri G.A.  Brahma  Deva,
\nJudicial Member.  The Rectification  Applications were heard
\nand orders  passed on 2.11.1992 by a Bench consisting of Ms.
\nS.V. Maruthi,  Judicial Member\t(since\televated  to  Andhra
\nPradesh High  Court), Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, Judicial Member
\nand Sri N.K. Bajpai, Technical Member (since retired). It is
\nthereafter, the\t appellants filed  the present\tapplications
\nwhich came  up for  final hearing.  It is common ground that
\nthe President, CEGAT constituted the Bench comprising of Sri
\nK.S. Venkataramani,  Technical Member  and Sri\tG.A.  Brahma
\nDeva, Judicial\tMember to  hear the  applications. When\t the
\nplea of\t improper constitution\tof the\tBench was taken, Sri
\nK.S. Venkataramani, Technical Member, took the view that the
\nBench as  constituted by  the President is competent to hear
\nthe applications.  On the  other  hand,\t Shri  Brahma  Deva,
\nJudicial Member\t took the  view that the applications should
\nbe heard  by a Bench consisting of three Members. in view of
\nthe difference\tof opinion, the following point was referred
\nfor decision of a third Member :\n<\/p>\n
     “In the  facts  and  circumstances,
\n     whether an application filed by the
\n     applicants\t  for\t rectifying    a
\n     mistake, can  be heard  by a  Bench
\n     consisting of  two members\t as held
\n     by the  Member (T)\t or it should be
\n     heard  by\ta  Bench  consisting  of
\n     three members since the main appeal
\n     was heard\tby a Bench consisting of
\n     three  members,   as  proposed   by
\n     Member (J).”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (emphasis supplied.)
\nSri G.P.  Agarwal, Member  (Judicial), the  third Member, to
\nwhom the matter was referred, held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     “that    in     the    facts    and
\n     circumstances   of\t   the\t present
\n     application filed\tby the appellant
\n     for rectifying  the mistake  can be
\n     heard by  a Bench of two Members as
\n     constituted    by\t  the\t Hon’ble
\n     President for this purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
6.   During the\t course of  arguments, Section\t35D  of\t the
\nCentral Excises\t and Salt  Act and  Rule 31-A  of the  CEGAT
\n(Procedure) Rules  1982 were highlighted before us. They are
\nas follows :\n<\/p>\n
     “35-D.    Procedure of    Appellate
\n     Tribunal:- (1)  The  provisions  of
\n     subsections (1),  (2), (5)\t and (6)
\n     of Sec.  129-C of\tthe Customs Act,
\n     1962 (52  of 1962),  shall apply to
\n     the  Appellate   Tribunal\tin   the
\n     discharge of  the\tfunctions  under
\n     this Act as they apply to it in the
\n     discharge of  its\tfunctions  under
\n     the Customs Act, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)  Every\t  appeal    against    a
\n     decision or  order relating,  among
\n     other things,  to the determination
\n     of any  question having  a relation
\n     to the  rate of  duty of  excise or
\n     the value\tof goods for purposes of
\n     assessment, shall\tbe  heard  by  a
\n     Special Bench  constituted\t by  the
\n     President for hearings such appeals
\n     and such Bench shall consist of not
\n     less  than\t  three\t  members   (two
\n     members) and shall include at least
\n     one   judicial   member   and   one
\n     technical member.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)…………………..”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (emphasis supplied)
\nRule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules 1982:\n<\/p>\n
     “31A.   Same    Bench    to    hear
\n     applications for  rectification  of
\n     mistakes  –   An  application   for
\n     rectification of  mistake\tapparent
\n     from the  record, under  subsection
\n     (2) of  section 129B of the Customs
\n     Act, or  sub-section (2) of section
\n     35C of the Central Excises and salt
\n     Act, or  sub-section (2) of section
\n     81A  of  the  Gold\t (Control)  Act,
\n     shall   be\t  heard\t  by   a   Bench
\n     consisting of the Members who heard
\n     the  appeal   giving  rise\t to  the
\n     application, unless  the  President
\n     directs otherwise.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t     (emphasis supplied)\n<\/p>\n
7.   We perused\t the three  different orders  passed by\t the
\nMembers of  the Tribunal.  The majority\t of the Members have
\nstressed the  language of Rule 31-A in the CEGAT (Procedure)
\nRules  of   1982,  in\tholding\t that  any  application\t for
\nrectification of  mistake can  be heard\t otherwise  than  as
\nprescribed under  Rule 31-A if the President so directs. The
\ndissenting Member  Sri Brahma  Deva expressed  the view that
\nany order  passed in the rectification proceedings will have
\nthe effect  of modifying,  amending or\taltering  the  final
\norder and  such rectified  order becomes  the final order in
\nthe appeal.  And so, there is logic and propriety in holding
\nthat when  once an  appeal was\theard and decided by a Bench
\nconsisting of  three Members,  the rectification proceedings
\nwhich  will   have  the\t effect\t of  altering,\tamending  or
\nmodifying the  final order  should also\t be heard by a Bench
\nconsisting of not less than three Members.\n<\/p>\n
8.   On hearing\t counsel,  we  are  of\tthe  view  that\t the
\ndissenting order  passed by  Sri G.A.  Brahma  Deva,  Member
\n(Judicial) is legal and proper. It is evident from Rule 31-A
\nof the\tCEGAT (Procedure)  Rules, 1982\tthat the  same Bench
\nwhich passed  the final\t order, should\thear the application
\nfor rectification  of mistakes.\t Due to subsequent events, a
\nsituation may  emerge when  one or  more of  the Members who
\npronounced the\torder may  cease to  hold the  office  as  a
\nMember of the Tribunal — by retirement, death or otherwise.
\nThough, ordinarily,  the rectification application should be
\nheard by  a Bench  consisting of  the Members  who heard the
\nappeal giving rise to the application, the subsequent events
\nor the\tchange in  situation or\t altered circumstances,\t may
\nrender it  impossible. In  such a situation, it is certainly
\nopen to\t the President to direct that the application may be
\nheard by  a Bench consisting of a Member\/Members who did not
\noriginally hear\t the appeal  and passed\t the order. In other
\nwords, the  Members, who constitute the Tribunal for hearing
\nthe rectification  proceedings, may  be different.  To\tthis
\nextent, the  President can  direct otherwise.  Normally,  it
\nwill not  enable the  President to constitute entirely a new
\nand different  Bench, even if one or more of the Members who
\nheard the  appeal and  rendered the  order  originally,\t are
\navailable. In any view of the matter, Rule 31-A of the CEGAT
\n(Procedure) Rules  1982 will  not clothe  the President with
\njurisdiction to\t constitute a  Bench  consisting  of  lesser
\nnumber of  Members, than  the original Bench which heard the
\nappeal and rendered the final order. We are of the view that
\nthe above position follows from a mere reading of Rule 31-A.
\nThis view is in accord with judicial decorum, discipline and
\nairness.  Any\tother  interpretation  will  bring  about  a
\nsituation to  clothe the  President  of\t the  Tribunal\twith
\narbitrary powers.  Such an  intention cannot  be imputed  in
\nframing Rule 31-A.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The order\tpassed under  Rule 31-A will have the impact
\nof altering,  amending or  modifying the final order. We are
\nof the\tview that  a final  order passed by a Bench of three
\nMembers cannot\tbe modified or altered or amended by a Bench
\nconsisting of  lesser Members. A Full Bench is superior to a
\nDivision Bench\tand a  Division Bench  to  a  single  Member
\nBench. The  object for constituting a Division Bench or Full
\nBench, is  the fact  that multi-Member\ttribunals create the
\nopportunity  for  mature  deliberation\twhich  improves\t and
\nenhances   individual decision making by adding perspectives
\nand excluding  or  at  least  minimizing  faulty  reasoning.
\nJudicial propriety  and fairness require, that so long as it
\nis possible  and feasible, the same number of Members should
\nconstitute the\tBench to  hear the rectification proceedings
\nas well.  It is\t also prudent  and pragmatic  and will avoid
\nchaos. In  the above  perspective, we hold that the majority
\ndecision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
\nTribunal appealed  against,  is\t erroneous  in\tlaw  and  so
\nunsustainable. We  set aside  the  orders  so  passed  dated
\n5.9.1995. The  appeals are  allowed. There shall be no order
\nas to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     Before concluding,\t we would  like to  make  clear\t two
\naspects.  The  first  aspect  is,  whether  a  rectification
\napplication  will   lie\t to   rectify  an  order  passed  on
\nrectification application.  This aspect\t was not  argued. We
\nleave this aspect open. The second aspect is more important.
\nWe  are\t  informed  that  innumerable  similar\/rectification
\napplications are pending before the Tribunal. We should make
\nit clear  that no  applicant can  claim or  insist for early
\nhearing or  priority hearing  of such an application. Taking
\ninto account  the overall pendency of such applications, the
\navailability of\t Members to dispose of such applications and
\nthe feasibility and practicability to constitute appropriate
\nBench, it  is for the President (subject to the observations
\ncontained in  this judgment)  to constitute  an\t appropriate
\nBench for  hearing of  the application.\t All that we want to
\nstate is  that the  applicant cannot  insist  for  an  early
\nhearing or  for giving\ta priority  in the matter. It is for
\nthe President, to pass appropriate orders in his discretion,
\nby evaluation  of the volume of work, pendency of the number
\nof   applications,   availability   of\t Members   and\t the
\npracticability of constitution of Benches.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 199, JT 1996 (5) 313 Author: K Paripoornan Bench: Paripoornan, K.S.(J) PETITIONER: M\/S. ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1996 BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-187052","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1887,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996"},"wordCount":1887,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996","name":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-17T10:42:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-elpro-international-ltd-vs-collector-of-central-excise-pune-on-2-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Elpro International Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Pune on 2 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187052","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=187052"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187052\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187052"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187052"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187052"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}