Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing M.B. Bakers Pvt. Ltd vs C.C.E, Indore on 18 October, 2016

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Bhushan Steel Ltd. on 2 March, 2023

3 E/1931/2012 view of the fact that the denial of the process to be manufacture by the Board was effective after the issue of circular on 24.06.2010 and that the departmental circular will have prospective effect and not retrospective effect in view of the Apex Court judgement in H.M.Bags Manufacture Vs. CCE [1997(94)ELT 3(SC)] 4.3 The Commissioner has failed to take note of the fact that Board vide its Circular No. 927/17/2010 C X dated 24.06.2010 had only clarified that mere undertaking the process of oiling and pickling as preparatory steps do not amount to manufacture. Since the Board Circular is clarificatory in nature, it has got retrospective effect. The Apex Court judgement cited by the adjudicating authority is misplaced in as much as in the Board Circular dated 24-09-1992 referred in the Apex Court judgement, the Board had used the word 'henceforth' and accordingly, it was held that the Board Circular has got retrospective effect whereas in the Circular dated 24.06.2010, the Board has used the word 'clarified' and not 'henceforth'.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Mrf Limited vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 30 April, 2025

In Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra), H.M Bags Manufacturer (supra), Arviva Industries India Ltd. (supra) and MRF (supra), the Supreme Court settles the position that Circulars/Instructions would have to be issued with prospective effect only and cannot operate retrospectively to take away vested rights of parties. The ratio of these judgements is applicable to this case.
Madras High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - A Sumanth - Full Document
1