Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Prakash Pipes And Industries Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 23 August, 1993

Commissioner C Ex- Dibrugarh vs M/S. Daisajan Tea Estate on 25 February, 2025

[2002(142) E.L.T. 622 (Tri.-Mumbai)] • United Machinery Works (P) Ltd Vs Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1995(79) E.L.T. 477 (Tribunal)] • Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd Vs Collector of Customs [1993 (68) E.L.T. 799 (Tribunal)] • Unique Beauty Care Products (P) Ltd Vs CCE [1988 (37) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal)] 3.2. In respect of Excise Appeal No. 70039 of 2013, the Revenue has urged the ground that the refund sanctioning authority did not wait for the decision in the stay application filed before the CESTAT Appeal no. E/175/2010 before sanctioning the refund and also, while deciding the case, he ignored the Department's valid legal grounds of appeal urged before the CESTAT.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Guwahati vs Daisajan Tea Estate on 25 February, 2025

[2002(142) E.L.T. 622 (Tri.-Mumbai)] • United Machinery Works (P) Ltd Vs Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore [1995(79) E.L.T. 477 (Tribunal)] • Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd Vs Collector of Customs [1993 (68) E.L.T. 799 (Tribunal)] • Unique Beauty Care Products (P) Ltd Vs CCE [1988 (37) E.L.T. 360 (Tribunal)] 3.2. In respect of Excise Appeal No. 70039 of 2013, the Revenue has urged the ground that the refund sanctioning authority did not wait for the decision in the stay application filed before the CESTAT Appeal no. E/175/2010 before sanctioning the refund and also, while deciding the case, he ignored the Department's valid legal grounds of appeal urged before the CESTAT.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

United Machinery Works (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 7 July, 1995

5. We have examined the records of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The appellants have filed an application for seeking permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. According to the appellants the documents which they seek to produce as additional evidence in support of their case were available during proceedings before the Collector but they could not use the said documentary evidence since they were not aware about the basis on which the Collector would be forming his opinion. It is seen that in regard to the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 779 has observed that "the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is an exception and that exception should be exercised sparely and judiciously".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Ranga Rao & Sons vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 May, 2014

5. We have examined the records of the case and? considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The appellants have filed an application for seeking permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. According to the appellants the documents which they seek to produce as additional evidence in support of their case were available during proceedings before the Collector but they could not use the said documentary evidence since they were not aware about the basis on which the Collector would be forming his opinion. It is seen that in regard to the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 779 has observed that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is an exception and that exception should be exercised sparely and judiciously.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N. Ranga Rao & Sons vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 6 May, 2014

5. We have examined the records of the case and? considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The appellants have filed an application for seeking permission for production of additional evidence in terms of Rule 23 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. According to the appellants the documents which they seek to produce as additional evidence in support of their case were available during proceedings before the Collector but they could not use the said documentary evidence since they were not aware about the basis on which the Collector would be forming his opinion. It is seen that in regard to the filing of additional evidence at the appellate stage, the Tribunal in the case of Prakash Pipes & Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 779 has observed that the general principle is that the Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in the appeal. Rule 23 of CEGAT (Procedure) Rules is an exception and that exception should be exercised sparely and judiciously.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1