Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Gvk Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 9 March, 2017

Electrosteel Castings Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 17 August, 2023

24. He submits that after the decision in GVK Power (supra) was pronounced, there was non-compliance on the part of the respondents no. 1 & 2, inasmuch as, the compensation which is due and payable to the petitioner was not assessed. Subsequently, on directions being reiterated by the Division Bench in the disposed of WP(C) 1565/2015, orders dated 15.02.2019 and 11.04.2019 came to be passed by the nominated authority computing the compensation which was payable to the petitioner. However, since the said orders had been passed without hearing all concerned, the Division Bench, on an application being filed by the petitioner in the disposed WP(C) 1565/2015, vide its order dated 16.05.2019 set aside the orders dated 15.02.2019 and 11.04.2019 and directed the nominated authority to take a fresh and reasoned decision on or before 31.08.2019 after hearing all concerned including SAIL.
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S S Kumars Associates vs Additional Commissioner (Preventive) on 21 July, 2017

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents however submits that it is only at the stage of show cause notice and nothing prevents the Petitioners from submitting a detailed reply and contest their case before the authorities and the writ petition at this juncture in its present form may not be maintainable and the same deserves to be rejected in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of M/s Sarda Energy & -3- Minerals Ltd. v. Union of India & Another, decided on 28.6.2017 in Writ Petition (T) No. 73 of 2017.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P S Koshy - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Elite Distilleries & Bevarages Co on 19 January, 2018

3. Learned AR for the appellant submitted that the impugned order allowing the refund of Rs. 9,62,543/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Five Hundred and Forty Three only) is not sustainable in law as the same is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that there is every likely-hood that the service tax element would have been a part of the sale price of the products of the clients, M/s. Seven Seas, which would have been ultimately passed on to the consumers. He further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) while allowing the refund has relied upon the decision in the case of Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. UOI reported in 2003 (161) ELT 93 (All).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Steel Authority Of India Limited ... vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 January, 2024

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 25/01/2024 at 12:48:07 the Petitioner, which was granted by this Court in GVK Power (Goindwal Sahib) Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7406, has been denied to the Petitioner contrary to the said Judgment.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1