Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 536 (1.92 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009

Jagdev Singh Alias Dev Singh Alias ... vs Competent Authority And Administrator on 9 April, 2024

18. It may be relevant to mention here that after the judgment in Hongo India (P) Ltd. [Commr. of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791] , Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was amended by Parliament by Act 32 of 2003 with effect from 14-5-2003 giving power to the High Court to condone the delay by inserting sub-section (2- A). It is, therefore, for the legislature to set right the deficiency, if it intends to give power to the High Court to condone the delay in filing revision petition under Section 81 of the VAT Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

Suman Kumar Rana -In Jail- vs Competent Authority And Administrator ... on 18 October, 2023

18. It may be relevant to mention here that after the judgment in Hongo India (P) Ltd. [Commr. of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791] , Section 35-H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was amended by Parliament by Act 32 of 2003 with effect from 14-5-2003 giving power to the High Court to condone the delay by inserting sub-section (2- A). It is, therefore, for the legislature to set right the deficiency, if it intends to give power to the High Court to condone the delay in filing revision petition under Section 81 of the VAT Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs M/S Learn Nature Consultants 50 ... on 16 December, 2019

39. The principles laid down in the case of Hukumdev Narain Yadav, Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co., M/s Simplex Infrastructure Limited, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India Private Limited (supra) as to in what cases, express exclusion of application of provisions of limitation as contained in Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act could be inferred, are well settled, but then, in the instant case, the examination of the scheme of the Act of 1996 and the Act of 2015, with regard to filing of appeal, upon scrutiny made hereinabove, does not reveal any legislative intention to expressly exclude application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the matter of filing an appeal against an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 69 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Shri Satish Kumar Sakuja vs M/S. Appolo Cranes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 15 December, 2023

39. Unlike the scheme of the Central Excise Act relied upon in Hongo [CCE v. Hongo (India) (P) Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 791] , there are no other provisions in the Commercial Courts Act which provide for a period of limitation coupled with a condonation of delay provision which is either open-ended or capped. Also, the period of 180 days provided was one indicia which led the Court to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as it was double and triple the period provided for appeals under the other provisions of the same Act. Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, by way of contrast, applies an intermediate period of 60 days for filing an appeal, that is, a period that is halfway between 30 days and 90 days provided by Articles 116 and 117 of the Limitation Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - S Datta - Full Document

Gujarat Electricity Regulatory ... vs Century Rayon & Ors on 17 April, 2013

32. Let us now refer to the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Page 18 of 36 IA 262 of 2012 in RP (DFR) NO.1311 of 2012 IN APPEAL NO.57 OF 2009 Customs & Central Excise Vs Hongo (India) Private Limited 2009 (5) SCC 791. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question of Limitation Act and its applicability to the proceedings under the Excise Act which is a complete Act and held that in view of the Special Act, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable. The relevant observations are as follows:
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Jayantibhai Narsinhbhai Prajapati & vs Collector on 19 October, 2015

Even in other  two judgments  in  the cases of  Commissioner  of  Customs   and   Central   Excise   Vs.   Hongo   India  Private Limited & Anr.  (supra) and  Chhatisgarh  State Electricity Board Vs. Central Electricity  Regulatory Commissioner & Ors. (supra), similar  provisions are considered by the Apex Court and  in   facts   of   this   case,   the   same   will   not   be  applicable,   as   observed   hereinabove.
Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 0 - R M Chhaya - Full Document

C/M Angoori Devi Inter Collage And ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 7 November, 2019

25. The judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited & Anr., referred to earlier, also considered the question as to whether the express exclusion of Limitation Act in a local or special law is a mandatory requirement and the factors to be considered for determining if the Limitation Act was excluded even in the absence of express exclusion. It was also held that the applicability of the Limitation Act is to be judged by the terms of the special law and not from terms of the Limitation Act and that the period of limitation cannot be extended by giving a liberal interpretation. The observations made in this regard are as follows:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next