Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Central ... vs M/S Allied Photographics India Ltd on 18 March, 2004
14.?In light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions by the Apex Court, the judgment in case of Bussa Overseas & Properties Pvt. Ltd.(supra) rendered by Mumbai High Court cannot be considered to be correct exposition of law, more particularly when the judgment in case of Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra) which has been rendered subsequently was not considered. It is equally well settled that mere rejection of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal cannot be treated as authoritative pronouncement of law by the Apex Court and therefore reliance placed by the revenue on the note appearing in 2004 (164) E.L.T. A177 cannot assist the revenue.
Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 April, 2002
6. Ld. counsel further cited a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Inds. Ltd. 2007 (215) ELT 113 which has taken into consideration the vital aspect of the amendment of Section 18 and has held that since the requirement of non-passing of amount of duty in the case of provisional assessment was incorporated only with effect from 14.07.2006, any assessment finalised by the authorities would be governed by the provisions of Section 18 as it stood during the relevant period and the assessment finalised by the authorities subsequent to 14.07.2006 and any refund arising out of such assessment will be governed by the provisions with effect from 14.07.2006. The ld. counsel also submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bussa Overseas & Properties P. Ltd. (supra) has been rendered prior to the amendment of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindalco Inds. (supra) has taken into account the amendment to Section 18 with effect from 14.07.2006. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Hindalco Inds. reported in 2008 (231) ELT 36, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat after discussing the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para 14 as under:-
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
= 2004 (4) SCC 55], noticing the inconsistency, doubted the correctness of two decisions rendered by three-Judge Bench of this Court in, i.e., (i) Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [2002 (9) SCC 416 = 2002 (143) E.L.T. 17] and (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise v. TVS Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (7) SCC 24 = 2003 (156) E.L.T. 161] as contrasted to the Constitution Bench decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) = 1997 (5) SCC 536].
Commnr. Of Customs, Bangalore vs M/S. G.M. Exports & Ors on 23 September, 2015
No costs.
[Commissioner v. Oriental Exports - 2006 (200) E.L.T. A138 (S.C.)]
It was further pointed out that in the present case imports were prior to amendment of Section 18 and therefore in view of the amendment with effect from 14.07.2006 it is very clear that the provisions of Section 27 of the Act could not be read into the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, to deny the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment.
C I T Udaipur vs M/S Godha Chemicals P Ltd on 10 January, 2013
Ld. counsel for the respondent assessee submitted that the judgment of United Spirits Ltd. (supra) cited by the ld. AR has been recently set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CC (I) vs. Finacord Chemicals (P) Ltd. in Civil Appeal no. 1633-1638 of 2004 dated 08.04.2014. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above cited case and considering the number of judgements cited by the ld. counsel for the respondent wherein the various Tribunals and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a consistent view and has held that bar of unjust enrichment is not attracted upon finalisation of provisional assessment related to the period prior to 14.07.2006.
Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 9 March, 2005
14.?In light of the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions by the Apex Court, the judgment in case of Bussa Overseas & Properties Pvt. Ltd.(supra) rendered by Mumbai High Court cannot be considered to be correct exposition of law, more particularly when the judgment in case of Allied Photographic India Ltd. (supra) which has been rendered subsequently was not considered. It is equally well settled that mere rejection of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal cannot be treated as authoritative pronouncement of law by the Apex Court and therefore reliance placed by the revenue on the note appearing in 2004 (164) E.L.T. A177 cannot assist the revenue.
Section 27 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S. Needle Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Salem on 20 August, 2009
The Tribunal, in the impugned order, following its earlier decision, in Messrs Needle Industries India Ltd. v. CCE [1998 (101) E.L.T. 286 (T)] has taken the view that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to provisional assessment in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act which is similar to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules.
M/S Kultar Exports vs Cc, New Delhi on 13 July, 2011
8. Considering the submission of both sides, we find that in this case, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable as the present refund claim relates to the period prior to amendment in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 i.e. 14.07.2006. The judgment in the case of Oriental Exports (supra) relied upon by the respondent and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.