Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 11 May, 1990

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

Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 January, 1991

(a) It was pointed out by the Senior Counsel that the EA-2 application was misconceived. In a case of erroneous refund, only proceedings under Section 11A of the Act could be adopted. The procedure under Section 35E(2) was not available. Reference was made to judgments of this Hon'ble Tribunal in Universal Radiators v. Collector (supra) and Re-rolling Mills v. Collector [1989 (43) ELT 115].
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sivananda Pipe Fittings Limited vs Superintendent Of Central Excise And ... on 17 November, 1992

16. After a careful consideration of the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side in the light of the judicial pronouncements placed before me and the relevant provisions of law and the indisputable material of facts on record, I am of the view that the submissions on behalf of the petitioner have no merit and do not merit countenance in my hands. So far as the decisions of the Apex Court referred to before me are concerned, they had no occasion to deal with or decide the issue that is relevant or raised before me in this case. The observations made were merely on the scope of Section 11-A and the necessary formalities to be observed and the conditions to be satisfied for invoking the powers under Section 11-A of the Act. The impact of an interaction of the said provision with the provision contained in Section 35-A and Section 35-E was not at all considered in any of the decisions of the Apex Court but were in issue and considered only in the opinion expressed by some of the Tribunals and whereas the branch of the Tribunal at South had taken a view favourable to the Revenue, the Branch of the Tribunal at North took a view supporting the stand point of an assessee-manufacturer. a careful analysis and perusal of the orders of the Tribunal in Re-rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise (Tribunal) and Collector of Central v. Universal Radiators Ltd. (supra) would go to show that greater emphasis and effect was given by them only to Section 11-A at the expense and in derogation of Section 35-E of the Act and in utter disregard of the jurisdiction of the authority exercising powers under Section 35-E of the Act. While the orders of the Tribunal proceeded to hold that there is nothing in any part of the Act that can counteract Section 11-A and that resort to Section 35-E cannot have the effect of nullifying Section 11-A and the time limit stipulated therein and that such an interpretation would have the effect of rendering Section 11-A otiose, they have totally lost sight of the position that dovetailing Section 11-A into Section 35-E would equally have the effect of nullifying and making Section 35-E wholly redundant and would also result in completely obliterating the said provision from the statute itself. Such an interpretation also cannot be said to be a proper or reasonable one.
Madras High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Rawji Ind. Corpn. on 7 February, 1994

(ii) Re-Rolling Mills v. Collector of Central Excise 3.5. He, however, fairly agrees that in the case of Andra (sic) Sugars , the Tribunal has taken a contrary view that where an appeal has been filed by the revenue within the time limit prescribed under Section 35(A) of the Central Excise Act, the notice under Section 11A is not applicable. But he pleads that in that decision, the earlier decision of the Tribunal referred to by him have not been considered.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1