Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak ... vs Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... on 19 June, 2003

Sri Shanmuga Bleaching Works vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 27 December, 2004

application praying for recalling the Final Order had been submitted well beyond the period of 6 months from the date of amendment of Section 35C(2) as it came into effect on 11-5-2002. It has been contended by the Appellants that the right of filing the Misc. application is substantive right which cannot be destroyed except by enactment with specific mentioning; that in the amendment section there is nothing mentioned about the retrospective operation of the amendment. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. v. C.C.E. Pune - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 465 (Tribunal) wherein the Tribunal has held that ROM application filed in January, 2003 in respect of Final Order passed in April, 2001 is not time barred under the amended provisions of Section 35C(2) as the right to file the application within 4 years inhered in Appellants on the date of filing of appeal which could be taken away only by specific legislation to that effect.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rathi Ispat Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 June, 2005

(g) The decision of two Member-Bench of this Tribunal in Shree Warana Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. v. CCE, Pune reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 465 was cited to point out, in the context of the provisions of Section 35C(2) that, the Tribunal held that the right to file rectification of mistake application within four years inhered in the appellant on the date of filing of the appeal and was not taken away by reduction in the period of limitation for filing such application from four years to six months, which came into force in May 2002.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc And C vs Gwalior Chemicals Ind Ltd. on 12 January, 2004

3.On the other hand, Shri Sunil Khandelwal, Learned Chartered Accountant, submitted that the job worker/contractors whom the respondents had supplied raw material nd packing material, had employed some skilled labour and manufactured the wooden items s per design given by them; that the job worker had also deposed in their statement to the same effect that the goods were manufactured on labour charges; that the contractors were independent entities and were employing their workers and staff using their capital tools, machinery and equipment that it is well settle law that the person who actually manufactures is the manufacturer. He cited the case of Shri Warna Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. Vs CCE Pune [2001 (131) ELT 676(Tri)- and Pawan Biscuit Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Patna, 2002-Taxindiaonline-04-SC-CX. He also reiterated the submissions mae by the respondents in their Cross Objections.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1