Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.82 seconds)
Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S. Chemplast Sanmar on 18 April, 2017 cites

Union Of India & Ors. vs Indian Charge Chrome & Anr. on 25 August, 1999

23. Whileso, a parallel proceedings has been initiated by the appellant department, by issuing a show cause cum demand notice dated 04.08.2011, wherein the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) have also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Charge Chrome (cited supra) and also the case of Gammon India Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in [2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC)]. The aforesaid notice has been issued to the respondent company, to show cause as to why the erroneously refunded amount should not be recovered, in accordance with the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said proceedings are also under challenge before this Court in W.P. No.23149 of 2011 and interim stay has been granted on 12.10.2011.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 69 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

M/S Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 December, 2006

Therefore, the decision relied upon by this Court namely Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 1994(72) ELT 538 (Ori.) while allowing the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.4566 & 4567 of 1987 would not stand in the eye of law. Therefore, the former judgment of the Apex Court binding on all the persons under Section 141 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 35 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

M/S. Gammon India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Customs, Mumbai on 6 July, 2011

23. Whileso, a parallel proceedings has been initiated by the appellant department, by issuing a show cause cum demand notice dated 04.08.2011, wherein the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) have also relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Charge Chrome (cited supra) and also the case of Gammon India Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in [2011 (269) ELT 289 (SC)]. The aforesaid notice has been issued to the respondent company, to show cause as to why the erroneously refunded amount should not be recovered, in accordance with the provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said proceedings are also under challenge before this Court in W.P. No.23149 of 2011 and interim stay has been granted on 12.10.2011.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 59 - D K Jain - Full Document

M/S Shenoy And Co. Represented By Its ... vs The Commercial Tax Officer , Circle 11 ... on 10 April, 1985

In the case of M/s. Shenoy & Company vs. Commercial Tax Officer, reported in 1985 (21) ELT 14 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. In paragraphs 16 & 17 it is observed as follows :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - V Khalid - Full Document
1   2 Next