Allahabad HC: Employees of Constituent Institutions are not Entitled to Central University Benefits || Calcutta High Court: Juvenile Accused Eligible to Apply for Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 CrPC || J&K & L HC: Departmental Proceedings Not Halted by Pending Criminal Case Without Showing Prejudice || Cal HC: CESTAT Appeals Abate After Resolution Plan Success; CENVAT Reversal Requires No Pre-Deposit || Bom HC: SEBI Settlement Doesn’t Protect Accused from Criminal Liability in Serious Economic Offences || SC Directs States to Notify Eco-Sensitive Zones Around Tiger Reserves and Regulate Tiger Safaris || SC: Its 2024 Order Letting Union Review Benami Act Cases Based on 'Ganpati Dealcom' was Incorrect || SC: Rejection of Income Tax Settlement Application Doesn’t Bar Assessee from Contesting Assessment || SC Informed Accessibility Facilities for Visually Impaired Candidates in AIBE and CLAT Expected Soon || Supreme Court: Pendency of Writ Proceedings Does Not Bar Availing Alternative Statutory Remedies

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 :