Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.50 seconds)
Documents citing Unichem Laboratories Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay on 3 September, 2002

M/S.Wipro Ltd vs The Assistant Commissioner on 13 December, 2024

29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 2002 (145) E.L.T 502 (S.C) has held that it is no part of their duty to deprive an assessee of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue. The relevant portion of the said decision reads as under:
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Jagson International Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 27 February, 2006

He submitted that as per the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System to which India is a party, the Customs tariff and statistical nomenclature was required to be in conformity with the Harmonized System. It was submitted that the general rules for the interpretation of Harmonized System and all the Section, Chapter and sub-heading notes were required to be applied. It was also submitted that the appellant was not entitled to raise any objection against the applicability of the Harmonized System or any clarification issued in that connection by the world body and cannot seek any right to cross-examine the members of the world body since the world body was concerned with the contracting parties to the convention i.e. the States and not with the citizens or subjects of the States. As regards the applicability of the Notification No. 196/87, the learned Counsel, in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay , Formica India Division v. Collector of Central Excise and Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd. , very fairly submitted that even if the certificate The learned Counsel contended that the appellant had not approached the "proper officer" after the interim order was obtained by it from the civil court and, therefore the goods were removed without permission of the proper officer and without allowing provisional assessment to be done. He submitted that the allegation made in the show cause notice regarding the goods having been removed without payment of duty was sufficient to bring their case within the purview of Section 111(j) for the purpose of confiscation. It was submitted that when confiscation was clearly mentioned in the show cause notice in the context of removal without payment of duty as well as want of licence, it cannot be said that mere non-mention of the particular Clause (j) of Section 111 was fatal and that the goods could not have been confiscated. The learned senior advocate also submitted that the appellant had adopted delaying tactics, by resorting to civil proceedings though the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matters pertaining to classification of goods and levy and collection of duties. He submitted that it was a settled legal position that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain such matters and the appellant could not have removed the goods even on the strength of the order of the civil court which clearly contemplated that the appellant shall be bound by the observation of the Customs duty provisions and to pay Customs duty, if any, under heading 8905.90. It was submitted that the question of applicability of the Notification No. 133/87 was required to be decided by the proper officer before the appellant could have cleared the goods. Therefore, the goods were liable to be confiscated since they were removed without following the essential part of the interim stay and without allowing the proper officer to provisionally assess and permit the goods to be removed in accordance with the interim order.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kobelco Construction Equipment India ... vs Chennai( Port Import) on 25 November, 2025

12. .. In Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (2002) 7 SCC 145 : JT 2002 (6) SC 547, the appellant was a manufacturer of bulk drugs. Exemption was granted to him under one item. He, thereafter, filed a revised classification list categorizing its bulk drugs under the other Head claiming more benefit. The claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the classification list and subsequently it could not be done. The appellant approached this Court.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd vs Union Of India And Ano on 21 November, 2017

In Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE [(2002) 7 SCC 145 : JT (2002) 6 SC 547] the appellant was a manufacturer of bulk drugs. Exemption was granted to him under one item. He, thereafter, filed a revised classification list categorising its bulk drugs under the other head claiming more benefit. The claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the classification list and subsequently it could not be done. The appellant approached this Court.
Sikkim High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 4 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

M/S.Ganam Homes And Estates Private ... vs The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 29 November, 2021

25.In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in (2002) 7 SCC 145 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is no part of duty of the department to levy and collect tax which is not due to the department. Relevant passage from the said decision reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

M/S.Vyasa Plot & Housing Private ... vs The Deputy / on 13 April, 2022

25.In this connection, a reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Unichem Laboratories Ltd vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in (2002) 7 SCC 145 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is no part of duty of the department to levy and collect tax which is not due to the department. Relevant passage from the said decision reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Share Medical Care vs Union Of India & Ors on 23 February, 2007

In Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, (2002) 7 SCC 145 : JT 2002 (6) SC 547, the appellant was a manufacturer of bulk drugs. Exemption was granted to him under one item. He, thereafter, filed a revised classification list categorizing its bulk drugs under the other Head claiming more benefit. The claim was rejected on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the benefit of exemption at the time of filing the classification list and subsequently it could not be done. The appellant approached this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 60 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next