COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR vs M/S GUPTA STEEL — C.A. No. 10821/2010

Case under Section III-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010165572006

Filing Date

03-Jul-2006

Registration No

C.A. No. 10821/2010

Diary Number

16557/2006

Order Date

24-Oct-2018

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHAVNAGAR

    Adv. B. KRISHNA PRASAD

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M/S GUPTA STEEL

    Adv. HARESH RAICHURA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Oct-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 24-Oct-2018

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.A. Bobde and Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao

  4. 12-Oct-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 12-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 10-Nov-2010
  7. 06-Aug-2010
  8. 22-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 18-Jan-2010
  10. 10-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 26-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 20-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 15-Jul-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 30-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 12-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 08-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 21-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 01-Sep-2008
  19. 25-Jul-2008
  20. 30-Apr-2008
  21. 11-Mar-2008
  22. 09-Jan-2008
  23. 12-Nov-2007
  24. 11-Sep-2007
  25. 16-Jul-2007
  26. 13-Jul-2007
  27. 11-May-2007
  28. 23-Mar-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 22-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  30. 12-Feb-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  31. 08-Sep-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  32. 03-Jul-2006

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 10821/2010

casestatus.in Summary

On October 24, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the three civil appeals (CA No. 10821/2010, 10822/2010, and 10823/2010) filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar against M/S Gupta Steel. The Court declined to entertain the appeals citing the low tax effect involved, but kept the underlying question of law open for future litigation in an appropriate case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case