Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.46 seconds)
Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 7 July, 1994 cites

Indian Aluminium Company Limited vs Thane Municipal Corporation on 25 September, 1991

The ld. Counsel, further, pleaded that the appellants' case differs factually and is distinguishable from the facts of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipality -1991 (55) E.L.T. 454. The case is distinguishable because the appellants, herein, had not come up with a refund claim belatedly and almost as an after thought. On the other hand, the appellants had claimed the exemption in the classification list and had followed the procedure which has been agreed to and laid down by the department itself. It was, further, pleaded by the ld. Counsel that the fact as to how the Assistant Collector satisfies himself, will fall within the domain of the Assistant Collector and in this case the Assistant Collector has prescribed certain procedures which was followed in the past. The ld. Counsel, further, pointed out that it is not the case of the department that Assistant Collector's satisfaction has been arrived at erroneously without material basis, but the department's case is only based on general proposition that under the notification, there cannot be any subsequent refund claim. The ld. Counsel, further, contended that there it cannot also be argued that there was a possibility of fraud because where the higher rate of duty is paid at the time of clearance and a refund claim for excess duty is filed subsequently, the possibility of fraud is obviated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 77 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972

The Ld. Counsel also relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise v. I.T.C. Ltd. -1993 (67) E.L.T. 852 wherein the Tribunal held that exemption, is not to be denied merely because benefit of notification is not claimed at the time of clearance, but is claimed by way of refund subsequently. The ld. Counsel, further, submitted that the Government of India has since amended the notification by issuing of Notification 64/93 for the purpose of concessional rate of duty for cars cleared for use as taxis. According to this notification, the condition that in a case where saloon cars, after clearance have been registered for use solely as taxis, the manufacturer will be entitled to an exemption subject to the condition, viz. (i) the manufacturer at the time clearance paid duty at the higher rate; (ii) the manufacturer furnishes to me Assistant Collector a Certificate from the State Transport Authority that the saloon cars have been registered for use as taxies within three months from the date of clearance; (iii) the manufacturer had not collected from the person in whose name the car have been registered as a taxi or in a case it collected and has refunded to such person, the amount equivalent of such further exemption of duty; and (iv) simultaneously, files a claim for refund of duty in terms of Section 11B Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 342 - M H Beg - Full Document

Gulab Impex Enterprises Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 20 January, 1988

In this context, the ld. SDR relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipality -1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 and Bombay High Court's ruling in the case of Impex v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1987 (29) E.L.T. 433 and that of Delhi High Court's ruling as rendered in the case of Metal Forgings Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 280 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling rendered in the case of Elson Machines v. Union of India as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Metal Forgings Pvt. Ltd. And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 12 December, 1984

In this context, the ld. SDR relied on the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Thane Municipality -1991 (55) E.L.T. 454 and Bombay High Court's ruling in the case of Impex v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1987 (29) E.L.T. 433 and that of Delhi High Court's ruling as rendered in the case of Metal Forgings Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 280 and Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling rendered in the case of Elson Machines v. Union of India as reported in 1988 (38) E.L.T. 571.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

C.C.E vs I.T.C. Limited on 17 February, 1994

In CCE v. ITC Ltd., the Tribunal held that the conditions stipulated in the Notification No. 178/77-C.E. had been fulfilled and in that context held there was no requirement in the notification that the benefit therein must be claimed at the time of clearance of the cigarette and claim of refund of duty filed subsequently was maintainable. The terms of the Notification No. 178/77-C.E. is different than those of Notification No. 162/86-C.E. In this case, the manufacturer has not fulfilled the stipulated conditions of the notification and hence this ruling is not all applicable to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, Bombay-I & ... vs Parle Exports (P) Ltd on 22 November, 1988

3. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, ld. Advocate and Shri B.K. Singh, ld. SDR for the Revenue. Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had followed the procedure as laid down in the notification and hence, the concessional benefit of the notification cannot be denied to them. The assessee can file refund claim as per Section 11B even after the clearances and the department is bound to grant the benefit, so long as the party has fulfilled all the requirements of the notification. The notification cannot be interpreted in such a manner so as to make it otiose and redundant. So long as the object and purpose of the notification is fulfilled the benefit cannot be denied. The ld. Advocate referring to the two conditions of the notification in question submitted that the word "and" existing in between these two condition has to be read as "if". In other words, he submitted that the said exemption is available to the assessee on satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector arrived from the act of the manufacturer, furnishing the said certificate from the concerned State Transport Authority. Ld. Advocate submitted that the certificates were obtained after the clearance of the Saloon Cars at a later period, well within 6 months, is sufficient for the satisfaction of the Asstt. Collector. Merely because, the certificates had been furnished at a later period, that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the claim. Ld. Counsel argued that the principle of promissory estoppel is applicable in the present case and the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the assessee. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following rulings:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 103 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial ... on 2 August, 1991

In such a view of the matter, the reliance placed upon by the Member (Technical) on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers (supra) in order to determine the nature of the condition in the notification would find support. In the result, the point of difference is answered by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of Notification 162/86 can be extended to the appellants by way of refund claim submitted after the clearance of the saloon cars at a higher rate of duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 270 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next