Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.49 seconds)
B. Sanjay vs Special Director on 21 November, 2025 cites

M/S Benara Valves Ltd. & Ors vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & Anr on 23 November, 2006

In this context, reference can usefully be made to the judgment of this Court in Benara Values Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2006) 13 SCC 347. In that case, a two Judge Bench interpreted Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is pari materia to Section 19(1) of the Act, referred to the judgments in Siliguri Municipality v.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 124 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr on 31 October, 2001

Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Adani Exports 7, the same is also not applicable because the said 4 2014 (5) TMI 93- CHC 5 MANU/DE/1235/2009 6 [2000] 112 TAXMAN 602 (FERAB) 7 2007 (11) TMI 18 - SC 9 RY,J CMSA_32_&_33_2014 matter is about refund of confiscated amount and the present appeals are filed seeking waiver of the pre-deposit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 371 - Full Document

Special Director Of Enforcement vs Anil Agarwal & Anr. on 31 March, 2009

In support of his contentions learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of High Court of Delhi in Special Director of Enforcement v. Anil Agarwal 10, wherein it is held that the question which Court has to consider is the correctness and propriety of the Tribunal's impugned order granting complete exemption from the requirement of pre- deposit which is otherwise mandatory.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Monotosh Saha vs Special Director Enforcement ... on 4 December, 2009

In the said judgment, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE 11, Monotosh Saha v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate12 and Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. 13, wherein it is held that importance of respecting the legislative mandate of pre-deposit, of 10 WP (C)No.17467 of 2006 and batch, decided on 31.03.2009 11 (2006) 13 SCC 347 12 2008 (11) SCALE 603 13 2007 (13) SCC 207 11 RY,J CMSA_32_&_33_2014 assessed, or penal amounts, wherever prescribed, as preconditions for appellate remedies. Further, it is held that the structure of several statues granting discretion to the tribunal or appellate bodies, in such instances appears to be driven by the logic of existence of undue hardship.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 18 - K J Sengupta - Full Document
1   2 Next