Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.59 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 85 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 78 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
M/S Singh Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 14 December, 2007
6.4 We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh
Enterprises (supra), even though dismissed the appeal filed by the party,
however had held that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the
Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with the jurisdiction to
condone the delay beyond the permissible as provided under the respective
Statute. Further, it was also held that there cannot be any straitjacket
formula for accepting or rejecting the explanation furnished for delay caused
in taking steps, and it has to be decided on merits of the case after taking
note of the peculiar background facts of each of the case. The relevant
paragraphs of the above judgement is extracted below:
Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India And ... on 30 March, 1953
6.6 It is a well settled principle that the statue must be read as a whole in its
context to understand its true meaning and intent. When the question arises as
to the meaning of a certain provision in the statue, it is not only legitimate but
proper to read that provision in its context. The context here means, the statute
as a whole, the previous state of the law, other statues pari materia, the general
scope of the statue and the mischief that it was intended to remedy. This
statement of rule was adopted by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Poppatlal Shah vs The State Of Madras, Union Of India & Others - 1953 AIR
274; 1953 SCR 677 as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Elphinstone
Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. & Ors. - AIR 2001 SC 724.