Titan Industries Ltd. vs Cc on 21 March, 1995
Indo-Swiss Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (Mad.). The Id. Counsel also referred to the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mis.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.31 seconds)Collector Of Customs vs Sarabhai Chemicals on 9 January, 1998
as also the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 345.
Cc vs Sarabhai Chemicals on 31 December, 1997
10. The respondents also contended that under amended Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, if imported goods are captively consumed and no part of the goods are sold in the open market, no question of unjust enrichment will arise and therefore, there is no bar on refund of duty illegally recovered. The respondents also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case Solar Pesticides v. Union of India as also the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs .
Adarsh Metal Corporation vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 August, 1992
In this connection, a decision of the High Court of Judicature for Madras may be referred to, reported in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 345 (Mad.) - Indo Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. Referring to the identical provisions like the one which have been inserted in the Customs Act also, particularly, to Sections 28C and 28D of the Customs Act, which correspond to Sections 12A and 12D inserted in the Act of 1944 by the very same amending Act, their Lordships of Madras High Court held as under :-
Collector Of Customs vs Ngef Ltd. on 13 February, 1995
In the supplemental affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the Petitioner had categorically stated in detail with reference to the manufacture of synthetic gems by the use of silica crucibles and the Petitioner made it clear that the Petitioner does not sell silica crucibles and does not trade in these silica crucibles. They are meant solely for use in the Petitioner's factory for manufacture of synthetic gems and these crucibles are used as refractory goods which could withstand very high industrial temperatures, which is necessary for the manufacture of synthetic gems. While so, it is manifest that the Petitioner had not passed on the incidence of taxation on the customers or buyers. That bring the actual position, the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. case (supra) is directly applicable to the present case. The Bombay High Court had in extcnso dealt with the effect of the amending provisions Section 27(2)(a) and (b) of the Act is very clear to the effect that the Petitioner is entitled to refund if such amount is relatable to the duty paid by the importer (a) if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty to any other person. As explained (supra) since the petitioner has not directly passed on the goods as imported to the Customers or buyers, the question of passing on the incidence of duty does not arise.
Win Laboratories Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 1 September, 1992
In view of the law settled by this Court as also followed by the Madras High Court in the reported decision in Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs rule in this petition is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b) excluding the bracketed portion in red pencil.
1