Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.21 seconds)Commissioner Of Customs & Central ... vs M/S Hongo India(P) Ltd.& Anr on 27 March, 2009
In this regard, reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs Hongo India (P) Ltd., [2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC)] and the decision reported in the case of M/s.Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2013 (293) ELT 326 (Rajasthan)], which was passed by the Rajasthan High Court, following the decision of the Honourable Supeme Court. Further it is submitted that since the order was pronounced by the Tribunal in open court in the presence of the Advocate of the petitioner, for all purposes, the relevant date for computation of limitation should be taken as 11.03.2011, the date on which the order was passed by the Tribunal and not 24.03.2011 as submitted by the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is a multicrore company and they have big team of legal advisers to advise them for the procedure to be followed; it is rather surprising viz., for the petitioner to contend that they went before wrong forum and they were before wrong forum for more than six years. Therefore, it is submitted that the plea submitted by the petitioner lacks bonafide.
M/S Kaizen Organics Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2013
In this regard, reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Vs Hongo India (P) Ltd., [2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC)] and the decision reported in the case of M/s.Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2013 (293) ELT 326 (Rajasthan)], which was passed by the Rajasthan High Court, following the decision of the Honourable Supeme Court. Further it is submitted that since the order was pronounced by the Tribunal in open court in the presence of the Advocate of the petitioner, for all purposes, the relevant date for computation of limitation should be taken as 11.03.2011, the date on which the order was passed by the Tribunal and not 24.03.2011 as submitted by the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is a multicrore company and they have big team of legal advisers to advise them for the procedure to be followed; it is rather surprising viz., for the petitioner to contend that they went before wrong forum and they were before wrong forum for more than six years. Therefore, it is submitted that the plea submitted by the petitioner lacks bonafide.
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
1