Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Ram Kirpal vs Union Of India on 16 March, 1998
Mr. Shah also relied upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ram Kirpal v. Union of India wherein the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gindlays Bank (supra) was followed.
S. Nagaraj And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Anr. on 26 August, 1993
Mr. Shah also pressed into service para 19 of the said judgment, which reads thus :
Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 November, 1990
14. Mr. Shah also placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Laxmi Electronic Corporation Ltd. v. C.I.T. ; wherein the Allahabad High Court considered a question as to whether a Tribunal could reopen an appeal if it finds that it has omitted to deal with an important ground urged by the party. It was held that such a power was inherent in Tribunal. Relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow :
Pratibha Syntext Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 July, 2003
22. Mr. Jetly, further submits that the provision of Notification provides levy of interest for non-fulfilment of export obligation. The Handbook of Procedure of EXIM Policy 1992-97 prescribes that the importer shall execute legal undertaking before clearance of goods through Customs. The legal undertaking would be for an amount equal to the value of export obligation imposed plus the value of duty saved plus the interest @ 24% per annum for export obligation period plus six months. According to him, the petitioner had also executed LUT Bond which incurred obligation on it to pay the customs duty (which includes CVD) along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of clearance of the goods till the date of payment of duty. He, thus, submits that the petitioner's claim to waive the interest on CVD portion is not proper. Mr. Jetly, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of this Bench in the case of Pratibha Syntex Ltd. v. Union of India ; wherein this Bench has held that once the petitioner has committed breach of terms of the exemption notification, the customs authorities were entitled to enforce the declaration with bond and legal undertaking given by the petitioner and to recover customs duty with interest.
Hi-Tech Engineers vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 July, 2003
23. Mr. Jetly also tried to support the imposition of interest on CVD by the settlement commission and again placed reliance on the judgment of this Bench in the case of Hi-Tech Engineers v. Union of India to contend that the settlement commission had jurisdiction to grant interest. Mr. Jetly urged that this Court not being a Court of Appeal against the order of the settlement commission, it can only examine the legality of the procedure and not the validity of the order.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Steelco Gujarat Ltd. on 10 December, 2003
24. Mr. Jetly also urged that although ground for rectification, namely, an error on the face of record may be common to a power for review, however, the nature of power to be exercised in two cases is distinct. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd., 2004(163) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) and pressed into service para 8 of the said order reading as under :
Woolcombers Of India Ltd vs Woolcombers Workers Union And Another on 27 August, 1973
In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Workers Union , the Apex Court was dealing with an award of an Industrial Tribunal. Apex Court found that the award stated only the conclusions and it did not give the supporting reasons and in that connection it was observed :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd. & Ors vs Additional Industrial Tribunal, ... on 3 April, 1969
15. Mr. Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gindlays Bank (supra) urged that the expression "review" is used in two distinct senses, namely, (i) procedural review and (ii) review on merits. In procedural review the error can be corrected while in review on merits, however, no review lies on merits unless a statue specifically provides for it. Mr. Shah pressed in to service para 13 of the judgment in the case of Grindlays Bank wherein the scope of the term "review" was examined by the Apex Court in the following words :