Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.46 seconds)Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India And 14 Others on 1 October, 1981
"We have considered the records of the case and the arguments advanced before us. In the case of Elson Machines Pvt. Ltd. (supra) (decided on 15-11-1988) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 8 of the judgment held as follows :-
Section 11 in The Drugs And Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Entire Act]
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
M. G. Abrol vs M/S. Shantilal Chhotalal & Co on 27 July, 1965
22. The assessee has relied upon the ruling of Bombay Chemicals (P) Ltd. v. Union of India as reported in 1982 (10) ELT 171 and that M.G. Abrol v. Shanthi Lal and Chotelal & Co. reported in AIR 1966 SC page 197 and contended that once the competent authority mentioned in the Notification issued the necessary licence, the exemption under the Notification should not be denied by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
Vimpex Dye Chem vs Collector Of Customs on 18 July, 1989
In the case of Vimpex Dye Chem v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi (supra) the Notification in question is Customs Notification No. 386/86. In this Notification the terms are that the importer should produce a certificate from an Officer not lower in rank than the Industrial Adviser in the Director General of Technical Department of the Government of Tndia, specifying in each case the description and quantity of each chemical in question and the description of the product and should recommend grant of the exemption. In the earlier case, referred namely, Mis.
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 124 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 June, 1985
In the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) the Tribunal has held at para 35 of the 1985 (22) ELT page 487 at 496. Para 35 of the report is noted below :-
Inarco Limited vs Collector Of Central Excise on 23 March, 1984
(ii) Inarco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay -1987 (31) ELT 469 (Tri.).