Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. vs Union Of India on 10 June, 1993 cites

Annapurna Carbon Industries Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 March, 1976

Shri Korde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the findings of the authorities below that the components imported by the petitioners are liable to payment of countervailing duty is unsustainable. Shri Korde submitted that reliance on Item No. 34A of Central Excise Tariff to conclude that the petitioners are liable to payment of countervailing duty is entirely erroneous. Shri Korde, submitted that it was not in dispute before any of the authorities below that all the components imported by the petitioners had gone into assembly of diesel engines. It was also not in dispute that 89% of the diesel engines manufactured by the petitioners are used for stationary purposes and hardly 11% are used in dumpers. Shri Korde submitted that merely because negligible part of diesel engines are used in dumpers which are treated as motor vehicles, it is futile to suggest that the import of components which went into assembly of diesel engines, were imported as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. In support of the submission, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of one of us (Pendse, J.) reported in [1980(6) E. L. T. 557(Bom)] Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. V. N. K. Kapoor and Others and the decision of the Supreme Court M/s. Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 79 - M H Beg - Full Document

Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India on 22 October, 1991

5. Shri Sethna then submitted that even thought the impugned orders are set aside and the respondents are restrained from recovering countervailing duty on the components imported by the petitioners, still the relief of refund sought by amendment cannot be granted. Shri Sethna submitted that unless the department ascertains the correctness of the claim made by the petitioners, it is not permissible to pass the order of refund. It was also pointed out that the department will have to examine the applicability of amended Section 27 of the Customs Act. Shri Korde submitted that the department cannot decline to grant refund by restoring to the doctrine of unjust enrichment and referred to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in [1992 (57) E. L. T. 201 (Bom.)] Solar Pesticides Pvt, Ltd. v. Union of India. We are not expressing any opinion as regards the contention of the petitioners in the present proceeding and that contention will have to be examined by the department while computing the amount of refund to be paid.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 64 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Kirloskar Cummins Limited vs N.K. Kapoor And Others on 1 January, 1800

Shri Korde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the findings of the authorities below that the components imported by the petitioners are liable to payment of countervailing duty is unsustainable. Shri Korde submitted that reliance on Item No. 34A of Central Excise Tariff to conclude that the petitioners are liable to payment of countervailing duty is entirely erroneous. Shri Korde, submitted that it was not in dispute before any of the authorities below that all the components imported by the petitioners had gone into assembly of diesel engines. It was also not in dispute that 89% of the diesel engines manufactured by the petitioners are used for stationary purposes and hardly 11% are used in dumpers. Shri Korde submitted that merely because negligible part of diesel engines are used in dumpers which are treated as motor vehicles, it is futile to suggest that the import of components which went into assembly of diesel engines, were imported as parts and accessories of motor vehicles. In support of the submission, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of one of us (Pendse, J.) reported in [1980(6) E. L. T. 557(Bom)] Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. V. N. K. Kapoor and Others and the decision of the Supreme Court M/s. Annapurna Carbon Industries Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1