Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.33 seconds)
Sunrise Immigration Consultants ... vs Chandigarh on 11 April, 2023 cites

Commnr. Central Excise & Customs, ... vs M/S. I.T.C. Ltd. & Ors on 31 October, 2006

Even though various other judgments of various High Courts and the various Tribunals was brought to my notice awarding 15% interest, in view of the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd. (supra) rate of interest is to be confined to 12%. I am also bound to follow the same. Therefore the interest that is liable to be paid by the respondents as per the directions of this Court in Ext. P12 judgment is fixed at 12% per annum.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 114 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Cc, Amritsar vs M/S Enkay (India) Rubber Company Ltd on 29 August, 2012

9 ST/60347/2022 the judgment of ITC Ltd. (supra) was considered and ordered 12% interest, and further held that when the High Court directed the respondents to pay interest to the appellant in terms of the circular dated 8-12-2004 on the pre-deposit of the delayed refund within two months, it has to be construed that, the Court meant the rate of interest which was awarded by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., which was the rate quantified by the Supreme Court in the absence of any statutory provisions in the Act in question.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat vs Gujarat Flluro Chemicals on 18 September, 2013

M/190/2011/EB/C-II dated 21.01.2011  Nino Chak of Delhi HC 2020 (371) ELT 701-Delhi  CC vs. ITC Ltd. 2005 (179) ELT 15 (SC)  UOI vs. Tata SSL 2007 (218) ELT 493 (SC)  Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat vs. Gujarat Fluro Chemicals 2017 (51) STR 236 (SC)  CCE & ST Rohtak vs. M/s Som Flavour Masala Pvt. Ltd. vide Final order No. 60385/2022 dated 02.03.2020.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 52 - Full Document

C.C.E. Delhi-Iii vs M/S Pricol Ltd on 29 June, 2015

Further, the main thrust of the argument of 12 ST/60347/2022 the Ld. DR that in the present case the duty has been deposited voluntarily and not under protest also does not have any force because consistently it has been held that any amount that is deposited during pendency of the adjudication proceedings or investigation is in the nature of deposit made under protest as held by the Madras High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Pricol Limited - 2015 (320) ELT 703 (Mad).
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next