You may also like...
-
(TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, PART 1 SECTION 2) No.K. 13026/01/2022-US.I Government of India Ministry of Law and Justice Department of Justice (Appointments Division) Jaisalmer House, 26, Man Singh Road, NEW DELHI-110 011. Dated: 10.2.2022. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Judge of the Madras High Court, to be the Chief Justice of Madras High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. (Rajinder Kas ap) Additional Secretary to the Government of India Tele: 2338 3037 To The Manager, Government of India Press, Minto Road, New Delhi. No.K. 13026/ 01/2022-US.I Dated: 10.02.2022 Copy to:- 1 Shri Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Madras High Court, C/o Registrar General, Madras High Court, Chennai. 2 The Secretary to Governor of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 3 The Secretary to Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 4 The Secretary to the Acting Chief Justice, Madras High Court, Chennai. 5 The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 6 The Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, Chennai. 7 The President’s Secretariat, (CA.II Section), New Delhi 8 PS to Principal Secretary to Prime Minister, New Delhi. 9 Registrar (Conf.), 0/0 Chief Justice of India, 7 Krishna Menon Marg, New Delhi. 10 PS to ML&J/PS to MOS (Law)/ PPS to Secretary (J). I l Technical Director, NIC, Department of Justice, with a request to upload on the Website of the Department (www.doi.gov.in). (Arun Kumar garwal) Section Officer (Appointments) Tele: 2338 3037
by Sekar Reporter · Published February 10, 2022
-
-
Meta AI: The Madras High Court has upheld the CESTAT’s rejection of a limitation plea raised by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt Ltd (MEPP) under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant, engaged in fabrication, was issued a Show Cause Notice in 2000 for allegedly floating shadow units to evade excise duty. The court noted that the limitation plea was raised for the first time before the Tribunal without supporting facts. Since the issue involved a mixed question of law and fact, and necessary factual material was lacking, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the plea. The court concluded that the extended limitation period was correctly invoked, and the appeal was dismissed [1]. Key points: – MEPP allegedly floated shadow units to evade excise duty (1995-96) – Limitation plea raised for the first time before CESTAT without facts – Madras HC upheld CESTAT’s rejection of the plea – Appeal dismissed, with no order as to costs
by Sekar Reporter · Published January 14, 2026