Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Union Of India (Uoi), S.K. Bharadwaj, ... vs Advani-Oerlikon Limited And G.H. ... on 3 July, 1987 cites

A. K. Roy & Anr vs Voltas Limited on 1 December, 1972

2. The Respondents manufacture and sell electrodes. The electrodes are sold in the course of whole sale trade to dealers at the factory gate. Excise duty was levied on the electrodes on 29th May, 1971. Between June, 1971 and March, 1972 the Respondents paid excise duty on the basis of a price list submitted by them and approved by the Appellants. It was assessed on the maximum price list fixed by the Respondents and the maximum price chargeable by the Respondents' declares from their customers. The price charged by the dealers was loaded with, inter alia, the trade discount allowed to the dealers by the Respondents. The Respondents became aware, it was their case by reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Voltas Ltd., delivered on 1st December, 1972, that they had made a mistake of law in including the amount of the trade discount in the assessable value of the electrodes. Accordingly, by letters dated 10th April 1973 and 12th June, 1973, the Respondents filed a refund application in the sum of Rs. 3,31,933.12 for the period between June, 1971 and March, 1973. This was the amount of excise duty attributable to the inclusion of the element of the trade discount in the assessable value of the Respondents' electrodes. On 12th November, 1973 the Respondents were issued a notice to show cause why their refund application should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation as provided by the Central Excise Rules. The Respondents were given a hearing and, on 7th February, 1974, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected the refund application on the ground that Rule 11 of the aforementioned Rules was mandatory and the application was, accordingly, barred by limitation. The appeal preferred by the Respondents was rejected, as also the revision application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 200 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 21 June, 1980

3. On 11th October, 1977 the Respondents filed the writ petition impugning the orders of the Assistant Collector, the order in appeal and the order in revision. The learned single Judge upheld the contention of the Respondents that the payment of excise duty in the manner in which it has been made was due to a mistake of law; that the receipt of the amount thereof by the Appellants was without authority of law and that, therefore, Rule 11 had no application. The learned Judge referred to the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 ELT 468 (1982 ECR 929D) and Vipro Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 ELT 531 (1981 ECR 380D).
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Wipro Products Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Another on 26 June, 1981

3. On 11th October, 1977 the Respondents filed the writ petition impugning the orders of the Assistant Collector, the order in appeal and the order in revision. The learned single Judge upheld the contention of the Respondents that the payment of excise duty in the manner in which it has been made was due to a mistake of law; that the receipt of the amount thereof by the Appellants was without authority of law and that, therefore, Rule 11 had no application. The learned Judge referred to the decisions of Division Benches of this Court in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 ELT 468 (1982 ECR 929D) and Vipro Products Ltd. v. Union of India 1981 ELT 531 (1981 ECR 380D).
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 October, 1975

4. Mr. Master, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted to us that it was clear from a perusal of the Explanation to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act as it stood as the relevant time that deduction of a trade discount was permissible in arriving at the assessable value, as indeed it is. Mr. Master submitted that, therefore, the payment that had been made by the Respondents was not made under a mistake of law. It was, he urged, made erroneously or due to inadvertence. Mr. Master cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, 1983 E.L.T. 1579, [1985 ECR 2298-(SC)]. It is not necessary to deal with the judgment for the question of a payment having been made under a mistake of law was not in issue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 172 - P K Goswami - Full Document

I.T.C. Limited vs M.K. Chipkar And Others on 9 April, 1985

6. By reason of the Explanation to Section 4 the Appellants had no authority to recover excise duty on the basis of an assessable value which included the element of a trade discount. It has repeatedly been held that where the payment is received without authority of law, the limitation provided by Rule 11 does not apply. [See and ] I.T.C. Ltd. v. U.K. Chipkar and Ors. [1987 (10) ECR 531 (Bombay)].
Bombay High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 28 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1