Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 76 (2.43 seconds)
Documents citing Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors on 27 April, 1993

United Spirits Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 25 June, 2009

In Oswal Agro Mills Limited vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (70) ELT 48 (SC), in case of Somaiya Organics Vs. State of UP, 2001 (130) ELT 3 (SC) and in case of Oswal Agro Mills Limited Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1994(73) ELT 521 (SC), the issue was invocation of the Bank guarantee. The Supreme Court in all those judgments was pleased to hold that the Bank guarantee which was furnished by the assessee cannot be regarded as payment towards excise duty, therefore, there is no question of its refund and Section 11B is not attracted. These judgments on the Bank guarantee are clearly distinguishable as no amount has been appropriated and consequently, the question of refund would not arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 5 - F I Rebello - Full Document

Sun Direct Tv. Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P. & Others on 20 July, 2012

38. No tax can be levied or collected except by the authority of law, as provided in Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Shri D.K. Singh submits that the power to tax must be expressed. There is nothing like an implied power to tax. The source of power, which does not specifically speak of taxation, cannot be interpreted by expanding its width so as to include therein the power to tax by implication or necessary reference. He relies upon State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd (supra); V.V.S. Sugar vs. State of A.P. (supra) and Oswal Agro Mills Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 98 - Cited by 2 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Mugat Dyeing And Printing Mills vs A.C.I.T. on 2 February, 2006

25. The Apex Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise was called upon to decide as to whether it can be said that furnishing of a bank guarantee for all or part of the disputed excise duty pursuant to an order of the Court is equivalent to payment of the amount of excise duty. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative and held as follows :
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Abdul Samad V.T vs Valanchery Municipality on 19 February, 2020

(xxii) In M/s.Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 716 = AIR 1993 SC 2288, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where the words of the statute are plain and clear, there W.A. 294/2020 29 is no room for applying any of the principles of interpretation, which are merely presumption in cases of ambiguity in the statute. The Court would interpret them as they stand."
Kerala High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Muraleedharan T vs State Of Kerala on 16 June, 2020

(xxii) In M/s.Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 716 = AIR 1993 SC 2288, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where the words of the statute are plain and clear, there is no room for applying any of the principles of interpretation, which are merely presumption in cases of ambiguity in the statute. The Court would interpret them as they stand."
Kerala High Court Cites 138 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Rajesh Sivasankara Pillai vs The Federal Bank Ltd on 7 February, 2020

(xxii) In M/s.Oswal Agro Mills Ltd., v. Collector of Central Excise and others reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 716 = AIR 1993 SC 2288, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "where the words of the statute are plain and clear, there is no room for applying any of the principles of interpretation, which are merely presumption in cases of ambiguity in the statute. The Court would interpret them as they stand."
Kerala High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next