Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Electric Lamp Manufacturers (India) P. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 May, 1980

Voltas Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer And Ors. on 6 May, 1982

In the Calcutta case (1980) 2 CHN 49 as indicated, after considering the findings and observations in the case of Bennett and White, etc. [1951] AC 786, on facts it was found that dissection was not possible, as the assessment in question could not be split up. The determinations of the Supreme Court in the Andhra Pradesh judgment [1970] 25 STC 202 (SC) are distinguishable on facts. But, one thing is certain, that dissection of prayers or splitting them up for doing real and substantial justice or for ends of justice, if such dissection and splitting up is possible on available facts, materials and pleadings, would be possible and permissible. In short, remedy and relief, for the reasons as indicated hereinbefore, can be given on such dissection and splitting up of the prayers, if the facts and pleadings permit them and not otherwise and furthermore, when such order would not or directly interfere with the other pending proceedings and would not bring a surprise to the other side. In this case necessary and relevant evidence was available, viz., the sales were in the course of import and even though the petitioner was authorised to import the goods, the consumers/customers really remained the importers and were liable as such and the import of the goods was inextricably linked up with the contract. In none of the cases as mentioned above, such contingencies arose.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Central Excise ... vs Madura Coats Ltd. on 29 April, 1987

"In this case as I have mentioned before, one of the main contentions was that there deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to avoid payment of higher duty on zinc sheets and strips. I have held that there is no material for the issue of notice under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the aforesaid basis, still I cannot ignore this as an aspect to be considered in a claim for refund. On the question of undue enrichment reliance was placed on the observations of Masud J. in the case of Electric Lamp Manufacturers India Private Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta - 1978 E.L.T. (3 84). Ofcourse the facts of the instant case are different from the facts in that case, inasmuch as there was positive evidence that the manufacturer had realised duties from the consumers, such evidence is not available in the instant case but it may be presumed that though as a matter of law Excise duty is payable by the manufacturer as a matter of fact it is passed on to the consumers. But that in my opinion is no ground to invoke the theory of unjust enrichment. If unjust enrichment is not to be permitted to a litigant, it should not also be permitted to the State. The State has no right to collect unauthorised tax or illegal tax. Good fiscal administration enjoins that all lawful taxes should be properly collected and taxes which are not due if realised by the State should be refunded. Such fiscal administration alone ensures the atmosphere of tax compliance.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Sanghi Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 16 July, 1990

17. The result of our discussions is to find that the Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the assessments from 1-3-1970 to 31-1-1972 only in respect of freight charges and nothing more. The judgment itself makes this position clear. The question of classification was never before the High Court. Besides paragraph 30 of the Calcutta High Court judgment in Electric Lamp Manufacturers (supra) makes it clear that the High Court can sever assessments.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1