Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.53 seconds)
Collector Of Central Excise, Meerut vs Modi Rubber Ltd on 9 October, 2001 cites

Jaysynth Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 11 September, 1990

In the case of Jaysynth Dyechem Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (1991, 51 ELT 246), the Bombay High Court was construing an exemption notification in which a proviso similar to the one which is contained in Notification No. 95/83 was construed by the High Court. The High Court held that the said proviso deals with the procedure to be followed in availing of set off of countervailing customs duty paid on imported intermediaries, but does not import the substantive provision of Rule 56A so as to defeat the exemption. It is not necessary, in the present case, to go into the question of interplay of Notification No. 95/83 and Rule 56A. The view taken by us does not rest on any substantive provision of Rule 56A.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Navin Chemicals Mfg. And Trading Co. ... vs Collector Of Customs on 15 September, 1993

However, before parting with the case, it is necessary for us to advert to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent. It is contended that in the instant case the appeal under Section 35-L(b) does not lie for the reason that no question arises in the present appeal which has a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 35-L. Reference is made to the decision in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs (1993, 68 ELT 3). In that case, this Court pointed out that the question to be decided must have direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The contention is that no such question is involved in the present case. However, the following observations in the same case deserve notice :
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 63 - S P Bharucha - Full Document

Steel Authority Of India Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bolpur on 20 February, 1997

We do not think that there is anything in the decisions of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (82) ELT 172] and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (82) ELT 173] which stands in the way of the application, though belated it is, being allowed. In the first case, the appeal was rejected at the admission stage on the basis of concession and the appeal in the second case was also rejected at the threshold itself. Apparently, no request was ever made to permit the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 35 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs & Central Excise on 21 August, 1995

We do not think that there is anything in the decisions of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (82) ELT 172] and Ferro Alloys Ltd. Corporation Vs. Collector of Central Excise [1996 (82) ELT 173] which stands in the way of the application, though belated it is, being allowed. In the first case, the appeal was rejected at the admission stage on the basis of concession and the appeal in the second case was also rejected at the threshold itself. Apparently, no request was ever made to permit the appellant to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next