Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)
Cce & C, Ahmedabad vs Ahmedabad Packaging Industries Pvt. ... on 11 February, 2002 cites

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. on 25 October, 2000

7. The decision of the Tribunal in CCE v. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. -2001 (127) E.L.T. 826 concludes that the issue before it was the refund of credit of duty. The Counsel for the respondent however, was not able to show the factual basis upon which such conclusion is based. It does not appear to us that the considerations that has weighed with us, that what was claimed as refund was duty (by whatever means paid), and not as unutilised amount of Modvat credit, was not raised before the Bench. Therefore, we do not feel ourselves bound by that decision.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Deccan Sales Corporation And Another vs R. Parthasarthy And Others on 22 September, 1982

10. The Counsel for the respondent next cited the judgment of the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court in Deccan Sales Corporation and Another v. R. Parthasarathy and Others 1982 (10) E.L.T. 885, The ratio of this judgment is that where, as a result of the department's actions, the assessee was wrongly deprived of the benefit of the proforma credit because of delay, the credit that was otherwise available did not deny to the appellant. We do not see how this ratio applies to the facts before us. The question before the department at no time was any aspect of Modvat account; it was only the classification of the goods. There is nothing at all to show that in deciding upon the classification, the department consciously or unconsciously looked into any aspect of Modvat account. It is therefore not possible for us, on the facts before us, to say that the department's action has deliberately resulted in denial of Modvat credit between April 1986 to March 1992. We must note here that when the classification was ordered and the duty paid on major part of the period April 1986 to March 1992, neither the departmental officers nor any one else was aware that the provisions of refund would be qualified by the amendment that was made to Sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act in September 1991. It is really as a result of the applicability of the amendments carried out therein, that these contentions are now being urged before us. The claim now being canvassed is analogous to a claim, that since the assessee has been denied its refund claim by amendment to Section 11B, that amendment should be disregarded.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1