Tata Robins Fraser Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 October, 1989
(1) Andhra Rerolling v. Union of India - 1979 (4) E.L.T. 600 (A.P.)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)Herschel Rubber (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 March, 1987
(i) Rule 10-A on which reliance was placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985(20) ELT 416 (Asstt. Collector v. National Tobacco), 1985(20) ELT 212 (= AIR 1985 S.C. 537 -D.R. Kohli v. Atul Products), and 1986(25) ELT 3 (Andhra Re-rolling Mills v. Union of India) was repealed and not re-enacted by Notification No. 267/77 on 6-8-1977. No Rule corresponding to Rule 10-A was to be found in Rules 10 and 11 brought into force by virtue of the aforesaid notifications,
Fusion Polymers Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 3 April, 1991
"This is a case where the appellants only supplied raw materials and the actual manufacturing process was done by M/s. Industrial Packaging who charged conversion charges. Following the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and Allahabad High Court in the case of Andhra Rerolling Works, Hyderabad v. Union of India 1979 (4) ELT J-600 and Gangadhar Ramchandra v. Collector of Central Excise, UP 1979 ELT J-597 respectively and the decision of this Tribunal also in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. Modoplast (P) Ltd. [1985 (21) ELT 187] (Tribunal), we set aside the order of the authority below and allow the appeal."
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 19 September, 1996
- Re-Rolling Works, Hyderabad v. U.O.I. and Ors., the appeal is admitted and it is referred to a Large Bench of at least three judges."
Somany - Pilkington'S Ltd. vs B. P. Verma (Director, Publications) on 31 July, 1989
65. Mr. Anand has placed reliance on the judgments in cases Ghanshyam Dass v. Regional Asstt. Commissioner of Sales Tax, , Binny Ltd., Madras v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Guindy and Others, 1979 (4) E.L.T. 65, International Computers Indian Manufacturers Ltd. and Another v. Union of India & Others, 1981 (8) E.L.T. 632, and Andhra Re-Rolling Works, Hyderabad v. Union of India and Others, . Mr. R. K. Anand has further urged that the cause of action for invoking Section 11A of the Act, accrues only from the relevant date, as defined under Section 11A, which in case of provisional assessment means the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment under Rule 9B.
Premier Automobiles Ltd., Bombay vs Union Of India And Others on 19 March, 1987
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that Rule 10 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the Department was perfectly justified in exercising powers under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules.
Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs A.K. Bandyopadhyay And 2 Ors. on 19 March, 1987
The principle laid down in these two cases was reiterated in another decision of the Supreme Court (Andhra Rerolling Works, Hyderabad v. Union of India and Ors.)
9B. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that Rule 10 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the Department was perfectly justified in exercising powers under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules.
Rajendran And Ors. vs The State Rep. By The Sub-Inspector Of ... on 8 April, 2004
7) (Death of 25 Chained Inmates in Asylum Fire in T.N., IN RE v. Union Of India);
Collector Of Central Excise, Patna vs Usha Martin Industries on 28 August, 1997
Mr. M. Gaurishankar Murthy, learned counsel for the
Revenue placed reliance on the following observations of
this Court in Andhra Re-Rolling Works, Hyderabad vs. Union
of India & Others [1986 Supple. SCC 263]:
Farhd K. Wadia vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 December, 2008
20. This Court has also taken suo motu cognizance as regards noise
pollution. It passed various orders from time to time in Noise Pollution, In
Re. v. Union of India and Another, which are reported in [(2005) 5 SCC
727], [(2005) 5 SCC 728], [(2005) 5 SCC 730] and [(2005) 5 SCC 731].