Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.46 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs vs Hico Enterprises on 30 November, 2005 cites

Shri Rajeev Mardia And M/S. Mardia Steel ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Indore on 14 March, 2001

6. As regards the applicability of the second decision with regard to the maintainability of the petition, it is to be observed that, no where is it indicated in the said decision that it passed a final order, except answering the reference as envisaged in paras 6 and 7. Therefore, the contention put forth by the Id. JDR that the order passed by the Larger Bench in the above case is within the purview of Sub-section (1) of Section 129B of the Customs Act is not correct.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise And Ors. vs Lal Chand Anand And Ors. on 24 July, 1985

7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the present application does not fall within the ambit of Sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act since the reference answered by us is not a final order within the scope of Sub-section (1) of Section 129B of the Customs Act. Our view is further strengthened in the light of Larger Bench's decision of the Tribunal at New Delhi in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Meerut and Ors. v. Lal Chand Anand and Ors. .
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs vs Special Steels Ltd. And Indian Card ... on 24 September, 2003

1. The Commissioner of Customs (EP), Mumbai, has filed this application for rectification of mistake allegedly crept in, in an Order dated 20-9-2005 vide Order No. M/1152/WZB/2005/C-I (Referral Order) passed by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. The matter was referred to the Larger Bench to answer the reference made by the Regular Bench over a conflicting issue as there were two divergent views in the case of Goodluck Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta and in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Special Steels Ltd. respectively. Accordingly, the Larger Bench has heard the matter at length and answered the reference considering the material on record. The grouse of the Department in this application is that some of the decisions citied by them were not considered by the Larger Bench; as such, it seeks indulgence of this Bench to rectify such an alleged mistake in the reference order by way of an amendment.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1