Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 January, 1992

Messrs Borosil Renewables Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2024

Union of India and others reported in (1985) 1 SCC 641 4 Reliance Industries Ltd vs. Designated Authority and others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 368 5 Delegated Authority and others vs. Andhra Petrochemicals Ltd reported in (2020) 10 SCC 209 6 Alembic Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2011 SCC Online Guj 7686 7 Shri Sitaram Sagar Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 2 SCC 223 8 Union of India vs. Cynamide India Ltd reported in (1987) 2 SCC 720 9 Eveready Industries India Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2019 SCC Online (Del) 7865 10 Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochemicals vs. Designated Authority reported in 2006 (88) DRJ 70 (DB) 11 Indian Spinners Association vs. Designated Authority reported in 2000 SCC Online CEGAT 1071 12 Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd vs. Union of India reported in 2000(118) ELT 305 13 Haridas Exports vs. All India Float Glass Manufacturers' Assn. reported in (2002) 6 SCC 600 14 Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry vs. J. K. Industries Ltd.
Gujarat High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - B D Karia - Full Document

Air Control And Chemical Engg. Co. Ltd. vs Collr. Of C. Ex. on 2 February, 1994

41. The appellants had contested that after approval the price lists became final and it was not open for the department to reopen the issue and that no show cause notice could have been issued. The approval of assessable values was granted on the basis of the statements made in the price lists by the assessee. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court have held in the case of Alembic Glass Industries v. Union of India, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 207 (Guj.) in para 24, 25 and 26 that the price list approved can be reopened under Section 11A of the Act, in case of short levy, non-levy or erroneous refund, and that it was neither necessary nor practical to have the price list approval set aside in appeal or revision first»
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Thermax (P) Ltd. on 6 December, 1993

27.1 A point has been made that since the price lists were approved finally after filing the copies of the contracts, the provisions of Section 11A of the Act could not have been invoked. This point has been discussed by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1992 (59) E.L.T. 207 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held in paras 23, 24, 25 and 26 that price lists approved can be re-opened under Section 11A of the Act in case of short levy, non-levy or erroneous refund, and that it was neither necessary nor practical to have the price lists approval set aside in appeal or revision first.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs C.C.E., Calcutta-I on 11 January, 2001

In this connection, he relies upon the decision/judgments in the case of the Central India Spinning and Weaving Manufacturing Co. Ltd. And the Express Mills, Nagpur vs. Municipal Committee, Wardha: AIR 1958 SC 341; C.C.E. Vs. Parle Exports (P) Ltd.: 1988 (38) ELT 741 (SC); and Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. 1989 (44) ELT 794 (SC); C.C., Bombay vs. United Electrical Industries Ltd.: 1999 (108) ELT 609 (SC); Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner 1991 (55) ELT 437 (SC); Punjab Rubber & Allied Industries vs. UOI: 1983 (12) ELT 54 (P & H); P.K. Nimel vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise: 1988 (36) ELT 482 (Kerala); Alembic Glass Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India: 1992 (59) ELT 207; Akbar Badruddin Jiwani vs. C.C.: 1990 (48) ELT 441 (CEGAT); TTK Pharma Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.: 1993 (63) ELT 446 (CEGAT); and C.C.E., Calcutta-I & II vs. Black Diamond Beverages Ltd.: 1998 (103) ELT 655 (CEGAT).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next