NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App. || Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement || Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles || Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025" || Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark || Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity || Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks || HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity || Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void || Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it

Kalyan Chemicals v. Government of A.P. and Ors. - (Supreme Court) (12 Aug 2015)

Reasonableness of fee depends on facts of case and appreciation of previous fee with passage of time

MANU/SC/0854/2015

Excise

The Supreme Court rejected the claim that collection of a gallonage fee by state at the rate of Re.1 per bulk litre was illegal, arbitrary and without justification in the non-rendering of any service. It added, the state had the authority to impose the fee retrospectively, and in its determination found Re.1 per bulk litre to be reasonable and not excessive.

Relevant : Synthetics and Chemicals Limited v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0595/1989 Vam Organics Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/1076/1997

Tags : EXCISE FEE EXCESSIVE PASSAGE OF TIME

Share :