Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.68 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 October, 1975
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that the claim for refund under the Act, is no doubt, barred by limitation. But the fact remains that the collection of duty is totally illegal. This is all the more so because the Government have subsequently issued a clarification that the stock of steel ingots manufactured prior to 9-4-1979 are eligible for full exemption. It is contended that at least from the date of the Government's classification in October, 1980, it must be deemed that the collection of duty is illegal and, therefore, within a period of three years from October, 1980, the illegal collection should be refunded to the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is, no doubt, attractive and is also supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Others and Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Others v. Supdt. of Taxes, Nowgong
The following passage in the last mentioned case is apposite :-
Section 72 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Salonah Tea Company Ltd vs Superintendent Of Taxes Nowgong & Ors. ... on 18 December, 1987
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argues that the claim for refund under the Act, is no doubt, barred by limitation. But the fact remains that the collection of duty is totally illegal. This is all the more so because the Government have subsequently issued a clarification that the stock of steel ingots manufactured prior to 9-4-1979 are eligible for full exemption. It is contended that at least from the date of the Government's classification in October, 1980, it must be deemed that the collection of duty is illegal and, therefore, within a period of three years from October, 1980, the illegal collection should be refunded to the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner is, no doubt, attractive and is also supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India and Others and Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. & Others v. Supdt. of Taxes, Nowgong
The following passage in the last mentioned case is apposite :-
Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 27 November, 1979
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India [1981 (8) ELT 478 (Mad.)]. The following passage is very relevant for the purpose of this case :
1