Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)The Registration (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1991
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
The Departmental authorities, however, did not act upon the said direction of the Tribunal and had subsequently invoked the provisions of Section 11B as amended by the amending Act No. 40 of 1991 which provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment/decree/order or directionof the Tribunal or any Court or any other provisions of the Act/Rules or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except in' accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 11B as amended. The provision had made it mandatory for any person claiming refund to make an application to the Assistant Collector within six months from the relevant date and the relevant date had been defined in Explanation to the said Section. There was no dispute in the instant case that it was clause (f) of Explanation which applied to the facts of the present case, and the relevant date was the date of payment of duty. Ld. Sr. Counsel drew attention to paragraph 146 of the Apex Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries Limited supra, dealing with the question of application for refund made before the commencement of the 1991 amendment to Section 11B. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court, it was contented that applications for refund made before the commencement of the 1991 amendment would be governed by the provisions of Section 11B(1) as it stood at the relevant time and was to be dealt with in accordance with Section 11B(2). For purposes of deciding the need for filing refund applications by a claimant within the specified period, refund order by a statutory authority like the Tribunal which had become final, as in the present case, cannot be deemed to be pending appeals. As the Department had not filed any appeal against the order of refund passed by the Tribunal on 6-6-1989 mere delay or refusal on the part of the administrative authorities in carrying out the order of the Tribunal cannot be construed to mean that the application for refund is still pending. Ld. Sr. Counsel maintained that the administrative authorities had no option but to give effect to the order by taking the necessary administrative steps for making the refund to the appellants. The question of eligibility for refund had already been decided by the Tribunal and the fact that the refund had not been granted will not make it a pending proceeding. He further submitted that the issue has been very clearly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 146 of the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. judgment, supra. He, therefore submitted that the Department had wrongfully delayed the payment of the refund amount in spite of the direction of the Tribunal by its order dated 6-6-1989. This cannot give the Deptt. a right to claim that the refund claim was still pending on the date of commencement of the 1991 amendment. He also submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) had by the impugned order wrongfully decided the issue against the present appellants by holding that their refund claim was still pending on the date when the amended provision came into force. He, accordingly, pleaded for the setting aside of the impugned order.
Union Of India And Others vs Jain Spinners Ltd. And Another on 10 September, 1992
They also contended that the decision in Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd., supra, was not attracted since there was no refund claim pending on the date when the amendment came into force.
Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr vs Broach Borough Municipality & Ors on 25 April, 1969
The legislature does not possess such power. The Court's decision must always bind parties unless the condition on which it is passed are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. It is not so herein. [Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality and Ors. [1970 (1) SCR 388] and Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India and Ors. etc. [1978 (3) SCR 334].
Madan Mohan Pathak vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 21 February, 1978
The legislature does not possess such power. The Court's decision must always bind parties unless the condition on which it is passed are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. It is not so herein. [Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Broach Borough Municipality and Ors. [1970 (1) SCR 388] and Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India and Ors. etc. [1978 (3) SCR 334].
Comorin Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 April, 1996
See also Comorin Match Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu JT 1996 (5) SC 167. Alternatively, it may be stated that duty paid in cases, which finally ended in orders or decrees or judgments of Courts, must be deemed to have been paid under protest and the procedure and limitation etc. stated in Section 11B(2) read with Section 11B(3) will not apply to such cases. It need hardly be stated, that Section 11B(1), the proviso thereto, Section 11B(2) and Section 11B(3) read together will apply only to (1) refund applications made before the Amendment of the Act and still pending on the date of commencement of Amendment Act, 1991 and (2) applications contemplated under law to obtain refund and filed after the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1991. (Cases dealt within Paras 5 and 29 of this judgment will not be covered by the above, to the extent stated therein)."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Amar Nath Om Parkash And Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Ors. Etc on 29 November, 1984
(3) Amur Nath Om Parkash and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 218; and
(4) Himalaya House Co. Ltd. v. CCRA and Anr., AIR 1972 SC 902.
Union Of India And Others vs I.T.C. Limited on 16 July, 1993
He drew attention to paragraph 49 of the impugned order in which reference has been made to the case of Union of India v. ITC reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) in which the Apex Court had observed that the amended Section 11B would apply to all pending cases including those pending in appeal before the Apex Court.
1