Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Excise on 23 May, 1994

M/S. Suncity Metal (P) Ltd vs Cce Jaipur-Ii on 6 August, 2013

The appeal filed against connected matter involving similar issue was dismissed by the Apex Court and that is reported in Rajasthan Processor (India) Ltd. Vs. Collector-1994(70) ELT- A 182 as well as in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Ltd. Vs. Collector  1999(112) ELT-A 115(S.C.). Once the laws having been clearly laid down that mere issuance of the credit notes subsequent to the collection of the duty incidents in terms of the invoices issued at the time of the sale of the goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had issued the debit notes and had made reference to such debit notes in their ledger books that itself can not be sufficient to say that the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. The appellants, therefore, are justified in contending the consequent on the failure on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident had not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below is not sustainable and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order along with the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside with the consequential relief.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Comm. Of Central Excise And Customs vs Ishwarlal K. Patel on 23 July, 2002

5. Mr.D.N.Patel, learned Sr. Standing counsel for the Central Government has, however, submitted that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not speaking orders and, therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Ltd. and in Sanghi Textiles cannot be said to have merged into the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the revenue, wants us to follow the above decision dated 22.1.2002 of this Court in CECG Reference No.1 of 2001.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Rohit Dyeing And Fining Works on 24 July, 2002

5. Mr.Asim Pandya, learned Sr. Standing counsel for the Central Government has, however, submitted that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not speaking orders and, therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Ltd. and in Sanghi Textiles cannot be said to have merged into the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the revenue, wants us to follow the above decision dated 22.1.2002 of this Court in CECG Reference No.1 of 2001.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - M S Shah - Full Document

4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Oriental Textile Processing Co. (P) ... on 7 June, 2011

5. The appeal filed against connected matter involving similar issue was dismissed by the Apex Court and that is reported in Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. vs. Collector  1994 (70) E.L.T. A182 as well as in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Ltd. vs. Collector  1999 (112) E.L.T. A115 (S.C.). Once the law having been clearly laid down that mere issuance of the credit notes or debit notes subsequent to the collection of the duty incidents in terms of the invoices issued at the time of the sale of the goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had issued the debit notes and had made reference to such debit notes in their ledger books that itself cannot be sufficient to say that the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. The appellants, therefore, are justified in contending that consequent on the failure on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order alongwith the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside with consequential relief.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vilsons Roofing Product Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 April, 2016

5.?The appeal filed against connected matter involving similar issue was dismissed by the Apex Court and that is reported in Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (70) E.L.T. A182 as well as in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Ltd. v. Collector - 1999 (112) E.L.T. A115 (S.C.). Once the law having been clearly laid down that mere issuance of the credit notes or debit notes subsequent to the collection of the duty incidents in terms of the invoices issued at the time of the sale of the goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had issued the debit notes and had made reference to such debit notes in their ledger books that itself cannot be sufficient to say that the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. The appellants, therefore, are justified in contending that consequent on the failure on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order along with the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside with consequential relief.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cce, Jaipur-I vs M/S. Man Industrial Corporation on 18 August, 2015

5.?The appeal filed against connected matter involving similar issue was dismissed by the Apex Court and that is reported in Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (70) E.L.T. A182 as well as in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Ltd. v. Collector - 1999 (112) E.L.T. A115 (S.C.). Once the law having been clearly laid down that mere issuance of the credit notes or debit notes subsequent to the collection of the duty incidents in terms of the invoices issued at the time of the sale of the goods do not amount to discharging the burden which is required to be discharged by the assessee, to come out of the principle of unjust enrichment applicable in such cases, merely because the buyers of the respondent had issued the debit notes and had made reference to such debit notes in their ledger books that itself cannot be sufficient to say that the respondent had discharged their burden in that regard. The appellants, therefore, are justified in contending that consequent on the failure on the part of the respondent to establish the duty incident has not been passed over to the customers, the authorities below erred in dropping the proceedings. Being so, the order passed by the authority below are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside with consequential relief. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The impugned order along with the order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside with consequential relief.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1