Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M. K. Brothers Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 16 February, 1966
The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.M.Salgoacor and Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in AIR 2000 SC- 1623 make this legal position very clear. It has been held in the said decision that while the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing special Leave petitions do not attract the doctrine of merger, the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court- even non speaking orders dismissing Civil Appeals do attract the doctrine of merger.
Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Anr., ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 September, 1991
2. Earlier, this very question came to be referred to this Court in Central Excise and Customs Gold Control Ref. No.1 of 2001. After considering the aforesaid decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills [supra], this Court answered the reference in favour of the revenue for the following reasons:-
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Excise on 23 May, 1994
5. Mr.Asim Pandya, learned Sr. Standing counsel for the Central Government has, however, submitted that the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not speaking orders and, therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pioneer Silk Mills Ltd. and in Sanghi Textiles cannot be said to have merged into the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, the learned counsel for the revenue, wants us to follow the above decision dated 22.1.2002 of this Court in CECG Reference No.1 of 2001.
1