Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Assistant Collector Of C.Ex. vs Bata Shoe Co. (P) Ltd. on 16 April, 2004 cites

Zoraster And Co. (Supplies) Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 August, 1983

16. Lathia Industrial Supplies Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise . In the instant case the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a circular that on and from a particular date particular process would not amount to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Apex Court held that there was no foundation for fixing a particular cut of date as the commencement of the period from which the process would not amount to manufacture. The Apex Court found that there had been no change in law in between and as such fixation of such cut of date was erroneous.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996

18. Now question comes to the period of limitation. Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules already prevalent at the material point of time provided three months time to make any application for refund in case any amount was paid in excess by mistake or under misconception. The period of three months was however extended for one year to the self-removal assessee under Rule 173(J). In the instant case neither there was any mistake on the part of the assessee nor there had been any misconception on their part. This was purely a compulsive mode of recovery by the Revenue on the basis of misconception of the Revenue authorities which was clarified by the Central Board of Revenue as referred to above. Hence, Rule 11 in our view had no application. The learned Judge held so and we are in totally agreement with the learned Judge on that score. It was also contended that there was no provision for payment under protest at the relevant point of time which was subsequently modified. Since we have just now held that it was neither payment under mistake or misconception nor under any error committed by the assessee as it was recovered by the Revenue under misconception, contention that the Rule 11 did not contemplate any payment under protest is an argument without any logic. On this aspect Mr. Khaitan relied upon various Apex Court judgments as referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 160 - Cited by 1694 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1