Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Roplas (India) Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 6 July, 1988

Adarsh Metal Corporation vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 11 August, 1992

Moreover, in the said decision, reference has been made to the decisions in Nawabganj Sugar Mills case (infra) of Delhi High Court, based on Vyankatlal's case (infra) and the decision in Roplas' case (infra) of Bombay High Court. As will appear from discussion hereinafter, the two decisions of the Supreme Court do not relate to the question of refund of tax which has been collected un-authorisedly. On the other hand, the decision of Supreme Court are directly related to cases where a refund of levy of market-fee was in question, where the manufacturer were obliged to sell goods at the controlled price; and the question arose with reference to beneficial legislation enacted for the benefit of consumers.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 38 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Standard Alkalies Consolidated ... on 19 December, 1996

: has ordered grant of pending refund holding that judgement in Roplas India v. Union of India is not a good law. The orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) were passed prior to June 1991 when Section 11B was amended so as to incorporate the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Therefore, on the dates on which these orders were passed and the appeals against Collector (Appeals) orders filed, there was nothing in the statute which prohibited grant of refund in cases where incidence of duty has been passed on. It is another matter that the refund now may be subject to the same condition, on account of subsequent amendment to the law. That however is a result of that amendment and will not be a consequence of these appeals.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs C.P. Shukla Pumps, Kopran Chemicals And ... on 7 October, 1991

The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not available for the Assistant Collector and even otherwise the Roplas case judgment is no longer a good law in view of the subsequent decision of the Full Bench of this Court reported in 1990 (46) ELT 23 1990 (30) ECR 145 Bombay (New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) we direct the Assistant Collector to ignore the decision in Roplas case while ascertaining whether the assessee is entitled to refund and strictly follow the decision of the CEGAT which is referred to herein above.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Orissa Cement Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 August, 1991

5. The Bombay High Court in the case of Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India, 1991 (52) E.L.T. 195, considered this question in relation to an application for refund filed under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and held that in view of the Full Bench decision of the said High Court in the case of New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 1990 (46) E.L.T. 23 overruling the case of Roplas (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bombay), the Department could not refuse to make a refund to the petitioner because the duty sought to be recovered back by the petitioner was paid under protest and further an assessee is entitled to refund as a matter of right when the decision of the lower authority is set aside by the higher authorities under the Act. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the present case, in view of the fact that the order of the Assistant Collector was reversed by the Collector (Appeals) and was confirmed by the C.E.G.A.T., the petitioner is entitled to refund of the duty illegally collected from it and the Assistant Collector is not entitled to reject that application on the principle of unjust enrichment.
Orissa High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Mamata Drinks And Industries Ltd. And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 14 March, 1990

The three cases referred in that paragraph as well as many decisions of different High Courts were noted in detail in Roplas (India) Ltd. v. Union of India [1990] 25 ECC 30 (Bom) : AIR 1989 Bombay 183, on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel to contend that the doctrine of. unjust enrichment, itself would stand in the way of the petitioners to claim refund of the duty in question.
Orissa High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - B L Hansaria - Full Document

New India Industries Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 27 November, 1989

In Roplas India Ltd.'s case (supra), the Division Bench was of the opinion that the decision in the case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) had not yet been overruled and the subsequent decisions of this Court mentioned by them were contrary to the said decisions in the case of Ogale Glass Works Ltd. (supra) and also the Supreme Court decisions in the cases of the Newabgani Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 37 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Anand Metal And Steel Works vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 10 February, 1989

"5. We are of the view that since the Petitioners have already recovered from their customers the whole of the duty, they are not entitled to its refund. Their claim for such refund amounts to a fraud on consumers, and the society. Any indulgence in their favour will amount to helping them to enrich themselves unjustly. They are not entitled to claim the refund even under Section 72 of the Contract Act. Much less can they therefore, invite this Court to exercise its extraordinary, equitable and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in their favour. The law laid down by the Supreme Court on this subject is very clear and has been reiterated from time to time." (Emphasis supplied)
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Hindustan Metal Pressing Works vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 20 October, 1999

5. We have gone through the submissions of both the sides. The undisputed facts are that the duty was paid in excess of the effective rate of duty and the refund of excess amount paid as duty was refunded while assessing the RT 12 Returns. The Appellants' main plea is that the provisions of Section 11B relating to unjust enrichment does not apply to demand raised Under Section 11A and to the refund sanctioned in terms of provisions of Rule 173-1. We do not find substance in the submissions of the Appellants. Section 11A of the Central Excise Act provides for issuing of a show cause notice if any duty of excise has been erroneously refunded. In the present appeal, show cause notice has been issued as the incidence of duty had been passed on to the buyers. The Assistant Collector, while adjudicating the matter, relied upon the decision in the case of Roplas (India) Ltd. v. U.O.I. - 1988 (38) E.L.T. 27 (Bom.). Now Section 11B (2) of the Central Excise Act provides for crediting the amount of refund into Consumer Welare Fund if the incidence of duty has been passed on to any other person. The issue involved is whether refund was admissible or not and as it was felt by the Revenue that refund of duty was not payable to the Appellants, a notice for erroneous refund was issued. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions relating to unjust enrichment are being made applicable to Section 11A of the Act.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next