Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (2.48 seconds)

Anjani Synthetics Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 February, 2005

5. Mr. Dave placed reliance on the observations made by the Tribunal in Paragraph No. 10 in case of Gopi Synthetics Ltd. (supra) to urge that the determination of APC could not be challenged before the Tribunal. It was alleged that, against fixation of APC, no appeal lies and hence, the only recourse the petitioner can avail of is by way of the present petition. Alternatively, it was urged that the decision of the Commissioner fixing the APC is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the order is void ab initio.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commr. Of Cus. And C. Ex. vs Bombay Burmah Trading Corpn. Ltd. on 2 August, 2005

5. The refund application was under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. That Section contains no bar as contended by the Revenue. Further, since the present Respondent has ceased to exist as a manufacturing unit and it has no Cenvat account into which refund can be credited, in effect, the order of the original Authority denied the refund to the respondents. This Tribunals' aforesaid decision in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad-I v. Arcoy Industries and CCE, Ahmedabad v. Omkar Textiles support the payment of refund in cash/cheque to the Appellant.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Kartik R Shah vs Ahmedabad-Iii on 18 January, 2019

In the case of CCE v. Omkar Textiles - 2010 (259) E.L.T. 687 (Guj.), it was held by the Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court that onus is on 41 | P a g e E/10151- 10153,11433,11436,12276/2018 the Revenue to furnish the evidence to prove the charges of clandestine removal and it is not sufficient if some confessional statements have been given by the Director of the Company.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next