Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.27 seconds)M/S. Rajasthan Cylinders & Containers ... vs C.C.E., Jaipur on 28 May, 2001
The decision of the Tribunal in Universal Cylinders Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I reported in 2004 (178) ELT 898 (Tri.-Delhi) was also cited for the same proposition
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Maharashtra Cylinder Ltd. on 8 July, 2003
The Tribunal, therefore, following the judgment rendered in CCE, Nagpur v. Maharashtra Cylinder Ltd. and decision of the Tribunal in MRF Ltd. (Supra), held that the claim of the appellant was rightly rejected on the ground that there was no provisional assessment and subsequent reduction in the price cannot be a subject of refund.
M.R.F. Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise, Madras on 27 January, 2004
(g) The decision of the Supreme Court in MRF LTD. v. CCE, Madras was cited for the proposition that once the assessee has cleared the goods on the classification and the price indicated by him at the time of removal of the goods from the factory gate, the assessee becomes liable to payment of duty on that date and time and subsequent reduction in prices for whatever reason cannot be a matter of concern to the Central Excise Department insofar as the liability to payment of excise duty was concerned. It was held that even if it was presumed that the roll back in the price of tyres manufactured by the appellant-company was occasioned on account of the directive issued by the Central Government, that by itself, without anything more, would not entitle the appellant to claim a refund on the price differential unless it was shown that there was some agreement in this behalf with the Government and the latter had agreed to refund the excise duty to the extent of the reduced price.
Universal Cables Ltd. vs C.C.E. on 17 January, 2006
It was held that the invoices in question showed the realization of excise duty by the appellant on higher rates i.e. at the rate which was paid and the appellant has failed to prove that higher duty so charged from HPCL had subsequently been refunded to them as a consequence of downward revision of prices. It was held that in the present case, it was nowhere submitted that they had not passed on the full incidence of duty and that it was not a case of unjust enrichment. The refund claim was, therefore, rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) by his order dated 5.7.2004 held that this case was not a case of provisional assessment and that the decision of the Tribunal in Telephone Cables Ltd. v. CCE on which the appellant had placed reliance, was to be considered as over-ruled in view of the Larger Bench and the Supreme Court decisions, referred to, by him. It was also held that undisputedly, the appellant has not produced any documents evidencing that the case was not hit by the provisions of unjust enrichment. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 December, 1988
If, he fails to put up that claim within that period, the bar of limitation as contained in that section would be attracted and his application will be rejected on that account, it was held that the statement of law made in Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise that the provisions ' of Section 11B are for claiming refund of the duty amount where the contract/purchase contains a variation/escalation clause, would not be attracted, cannot be said to be correct and that in such a situation also, the provisions of Section 11B of the Act were attracted and the application for claiming refund of excess duty has to be filed within six months from the relevant date.
M/S Traco Cable Company Ltd., vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 19 June, 2001
(e) The decision of the Tribunal in Traco Cable Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin reported in 2004(172) ELT 33 (Tri.-Bangalore), was cited to point out that the Tribunal upheld the decision in Telephone Cables Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh (Supra) rendered without any reference to the decision of the Apex Court in MRF Limited v. CCE, Madras and it was not in consonance with law laid down by the Apex Court.
Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. vs Cce on 28 February, 2000
Reliance is placed on the decision in Asiatic Oxygen & Acetylene Co. Ltd. v. CCE in which it was held that if price variation clause resulted in decrease in price, when contract for sales contained price variation clause, prices declared were provisional and consequently provisionality attaches to approval granted to the price lists and also to the assessment and, therefore, limitation for presenting claim under Section 11B of the said Act will not be attracted.
Metal Forgings & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 November, 2002
Limited, was cited to show from paragraph 18 of the judgment that ratio of the decision in the case of Metal Forgings (supra) was reiterated.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs Hindustan National Glass And ... on 11 March, 2005
The decision of the Supreme Court in CCE, Calcuttta v. Hindustan National Glass & Indus.