Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Cce, Delhi vs (1) Ganpati Rolling P.Ltd on 1 March, 2012
Likewise, when this Court
dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Full Bench of the CESTAT
in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ganpati Rolling Pvt.
Ltd.(supra) as withdrawn, there was obviously no occasion to consider any
of the above decisions of the Gujarat High Court, which in the considered
view of the Court merit acceptance.
S.N. Chandrashekar And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 2 February, 2006
After referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.N.
Chandrashekhar v. State of Karnataka (2006) 3 SCC 208 and Ashok
Leyland v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 3 SCC 1, the Gujarat High Court
interpreted Rule 173Q as under:
Section 11 in The Coinage Act, 2011 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Central Excise And ... vs M/S.Saurashtra Cement ... on 28 January, 2016
9. The opening words of Rule 25 is "Subject to the provisions of Section
11AC of the CE Act" and not an non-obstante clause which would have
begun with the words "Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11AC of
the CE Act". It is plain that the CE Rules are subordinate legislation and
have to abide the discipline of the statute under which they are made. Where
Rule 25(1) expressly begins with "Subject to the provisions of Section 11AC
of the CE Act", obviously the requirements of Section 11AC will have to
CEAC No. 7 of 2016 Page 4 of 7
constitute a condition subject to which the power under Rule 25 can be
exercised. Rule 25 of the CE Rules itself came up for interpretation before
the Gujarat High Court in Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (supra) wherein para 17
it was observed as under:
M/S S.K. Sacks (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 11 July, 2011
As far as the
CEAC No. 7 of 2016 Page 6 of 7
decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in S.K. Sacks (P) Ltd.
(supra) is concerned, there is no discussion of the expression "subject to
Section 11AC" occurring in Rule 25 of the CE Rules, 2002.
1