Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise vs Universal Cables Ltd. on 3 July, 1987

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 12 May, 1994

In view of this it is not necessary here to consider whether the cases Re-Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise ; Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Radiators Ltd. , and Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as cited by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants or the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Raman Boards Ltd. and Andhra Sugars Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise as cited by JDR were rightly decided or not. Since all these cases relate to the alleged erroneous refund for which the relevant date under Section 11A of the Act is quite different whereas the present case is the case of finalisation of provisional assessment for which there is a different relevant date. And it seems to us that these cases are clearly distinguishable on facts as well as on the language used therein. As detailed out by both the Ld. Members of the referring Bench in their referring Order. For ready reference the same may be reproduced as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise And Customs vs Kelvin Metal Crafts (Pvt) Ltd. on 13 April, 1993

20. The Two Member Bench of CEGAT Special Bench 'B' in Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Radiators Ltd. -- 1988(12)ETR 408, had also before them a case where Assistant Collector passed an order on a refund claim and sanctioned the refund and the said order, by virtue of the direction given vide Section 35E(2) was appealed against. The Collector (Appeals) however held that the cheque for refund was already encashed, and period of six months had already passed before the notice of appeal was served and as such, he was not authorised to pass an order requiring to pay the duty erroneously refunded. The Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Collector (Appeals), and made observation in para 9, as under:--
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asian Paints (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 June, 1994

In this backdrop he submitted that the cases of Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Radiators Limited, supra, Shree Digvijay Cement Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, supra, and the Collector of Customs v. Perm Alloys Corporation Limited, 1992 (52) ELT 633 were correctly decided and the contra views expressed by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Raman Boards Limited, 1985 (22) ELT 892 and Andhra Sugars Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, 1991 (55) ELT 262 were wrongly decided as these cases ignore the basic issues, namely, that Section 35E(2) is a general provision whereas Section 11A is a specific and reliance placed upon Section 35A(3) was misconceived.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Fag Precision Bearings Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. And Customs on 27 January, 1998

The ld. DR. pointed out that in this decision, the High Court has not approved the Tribunal decision in the case of Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (43) E.L.T. 115 (Tribunal) and in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Radiators Ltd. -1988 (37) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal) in which the Tribunal had held that demand by tile Department for repayment of duty erroneously refunded can only be under Section 11A and within the time stipulated therefor and the period of limitation provided therein cannot be circumvented by having recourse to Section 35E of the Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Phoenix Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 13 January, 2004

15. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners taking last submission first, submitted that it is not correct on the part of the Revenue to contend that the burden of proof lies on the petitioners. According to him, in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Markfed Vanaspati & Allied Indus., 2003 (153) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.), burden of proof is on the Revenue to establish that the printing paste used by the petitioners was an outcome of the process of 'manufacture', He has also relied upon the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. Universal Cable Ltd., to contend that it is a settled law that the burden to prove that there was 'manufacture' and what was used was manufactured by the petitioners was on the Revenue.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - V C Daga - Full Document

Ballarpur Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 9 May, 2000

From the above reading, it becomes very clear that the issue of show cause notice under Section 11A is mandatory and it is a statutory provision under the requirement. Thus it can be clearly said that the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act and Section 11A of the Act are exclusive in nature on account of special feature of issuance of show cause notice. This feature cannot be circumvented. In a similar situation under Excise Act, where classification list had not been challenged by the Revenue by filing appeal under Section 35 of the Excise Act but preferred to have the matter reviewed under Section 35E of the Act, after the expiry of statutory period under Section 11A of the Act, the Tribunal has held that by following such a procedure, would make Section 11A nugatory. This view has been expressed in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. Universal Radiators Ltd. in paras 9,10 which is noted below:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next