Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 106 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Collector Of Central Excise, Baroda vs Indian Petro Chemicals on 11 December, 1996

Cc (Airport) vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. on 11 March, 2003

The decisions, of this Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals, 1997 (92) ELT 33 (SC) and HCL Limited v. CC, New Delhi 2001 (76) ECC 11 (SC) : 2001 (130) ELT 405 (SC) do not in any lend any support to the contentions of the respondent herein by reason of the special fact situation as above and in any event we are not concerned with two notifications, one of which confers benefit on to the assessee. Thus, reliance thereon is totally misplaced in the facts of the matter under consideration.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Marathon Traexim Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 30 June, 2011

The question in these appeals is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals [1997 (92) E.L.T. 13]. Where there are two exemption notifications that cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives him greater relief, regardless of the fact that that notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C.S. Mathur vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors. on 27 March, 1998

18. Though we are clear in our mind that the petitioner's case is covered by Section 80RRA, still an alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-assessee has to be taken note of. It was submitted by Mr M.S. Syali, learned counsel for the petitioner, that if the case of the petitioner is covered by Section 80O and 80RRA - both, then too he would be legitimately entitled to the benefit of that provision of the tax law which enables a larger benefit being earned by him. He placed reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise, Parody Vs. Indian Petre Chemical,1997(11) SC 318. In our opinion, Mr Syali is right in his submission.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 14 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Gat No. 1109 vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 26 August, 2009

"The question in these appeals is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals [1997 (92) ELT 13]. Where there are two exemption notifications that cover the goods in question, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of that exemption notification which gives him greater relief, regardless of the fact that the latter notification is general in its terms and the other notification is more specific to the goods".
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - F I Rebello - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next