Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.25 seconds)
Narayani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce on 9 October, 2003 cites

Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991

5. Ld. SDR defended the impugned order by submitting that the conditions laid down under Notification No. 85/87-CE were of a mandatory nature and non-fulfilment thereof would necessarily result in rejection of the refund claim. With reference to condition No. 6, he submitted that the appellants had not succeeded in establishing that they were not in a position to utilize the credit of duty allowed under Rule 57A against the goods exported during the relevant period. It was further submitted, with reference to condition No. 7, that non-production of original export documents within the time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act was fatal to the refund claim. It was argued that even a procedural condition was not to be condoned. Ld. DR sought to draw support to this plea from the Supreme Court's decision in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. v. Thane Municipal Corporation [1991 (55) ELT 454 (SC)]. On the limitation issue, the DR contested the counsel's argument by submitting that, under Section 11B of the Act, the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation was the date on which the exportation commenced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 77 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs Doaba Co-Operative Sugar Mills ... on 16 August, 1988

In this connection, he referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CCE, Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills [1988 (37) ELT 478 (SC)]. In his rejoinder, Id. Counsel submitted that the relevant date was the date on which the appellants came to know that they were not able to utilize the deemed credit, which was the date on which they came to be covered under the Compounded Levy Scheme.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 116 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1