Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 21 June, 1980

Kesoram Cements, Basantnagar vs Union Of India And Ors. on 31 December, 1981

42. As observed by us earlier, on 3-4-1981 their lordships of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Eradi, refused special leave to the Union of India to appeal against the decisions of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (supra) wherein the doctrine of unjust enrichment put forward by the Union of India was rejected.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 42 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Golden Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Union Of India And Another on 23 November, 1981

In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. D. Cawasji and Co's., case, where it was observed that it is seldom that a person can, event with a reasonable diligence, discover a mistake of law before a judgment is delivered adjudging the validity of that law, and the decisions of this High Court in Associated Bearing Company's case and in the case of Maharashtra Vegetable Product Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, in which it was held that in such a cases the period of limitation of three years would start from the date on which the judgment declaring the law as void was rendered, It must be held that the starting point of limitation would be the date on which the particular judgment was pronounced.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 11 - D P Madon - Full Document

Industrial Cables (India) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And 2 Ors. on 15 June, 1984

10. That it was collected without authority of law is not even disputed by Mr. Deodhar with his habitual fairness, and rightly so. It is trite to say that it is the obligation of the Department to refund the excess of duty collected without authority of law. Patel India v. Union of India , followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) E.L.T. 468 : 1982 ECR 929D and reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in Wipro Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 E.L.T. 531 : 1981 ECR 38OD.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dulichand Shreelal vs Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. on 28 April, 1986

This decision (Ogale Glass Works) was considered by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) reported in (1981) ELT 468 where it was held that in Ogale Glass Works the Court declined to grant any relief on the ground of laches, not on the ground of unjust enrichment. The Division Bench observed at page 473 thus :
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Oswal Oil And Soap Industries And Anr. vs Customs, Excise And Gold Control ... on 14 May, 1987

The Bombay High Court in* Maharashtra Vegetable Products Ltd.'s case (supra) had held that the excise authorities had no jurisdiction to take into account the post-manufacturing expenses for the purpose of chargeability of excise duty, that if the excise duty was wrongly collected on the post-manufacturing expenses, it clearly amounted to exercising of powers without jurisdiction and outside the provisions of the Central Excise Act and that the amount of duty illegally collected was refundable even though it was recovered from the consumers by the manufacturers and might result in unjust enrichment. This view was affirmed by the final Court when the Special Leave Petition filed against this judgment was dismissed on 3rd April, 1981. The other decisions noticed above have also taken the view that excise duty charged without the authority of law is liable to be refunded to the person from whom it had been recovered even though he had passed on the duty to his coustomers or consumers.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chemicals And Fibres India Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 25 June, 1982

49. The question as to whether a petitioner is entitled to an order for refund in a case where the levy had been found to be illegal has been considered at length in a decision of this Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, 1981 Excise Law Times 468, by a Division Bench to which one of us (Chandurkar J.) was a party, and it has been held in that decision that the State is under obligation to refund moneys which have been recovered without authority of law and the defence that the grant of relief would amount to unjust enrichment is totally without any merit.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs M.K. Chipkar And Others on 9 April, 1985

45. The decision in Maharashtra Vegetable case which has been followed in the later decisions of this Court has explained the ratio and ambit of the decision of this Court in M/s. Ogale Glass Works and also interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji as laying down the proposition that a claim of restitution cannot be denied even if the manufacturer may have collected the amount of tax from his consumers. I respectfully agree with the view taken by the Division Benche's decision in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd., and also by other Division Benches thereafter.
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 28 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 3 Next