Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Finance Act, 2018
Commr.Of Central Excise,Pune vs M/S Skf India Ltd on 6 July, 2009
The decision of the Karnataka High Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. case, referred supra, holding that interest is not payable on supplementary invoices on the ground that there was no demand, is not justified in view of the emphatic finding rendered by the Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. case, referred supra, in paragraph (11), which, with the risk of repetition, is reproduced hereunder for better clarity:
Section 2 in Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Presscom Products on 7 March, 2011
10.8. We find that another Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Presscom Products, 2011 (268) ELT 344 (Kar.)
Section 64 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Commr.Of Cen.Excise vs M/S International Auto Ltd on 8 January, 2010
(3) Whether the first respondent is right in following the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Presscom when the said decision has been rendered by a Division bench of the Karnataka High Court without referring the matter to the Full Bench in view of the decision of BHEL on the same point which is also by a Division bench of the very same Karnataka High Court?
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs International Auto Products (P) Ltd., ... on 12 September, 2001
10.5. The Supreme Court reiterated the said position of law in Commissioner of Central Excise v. International Auto Ltd., 2010 (250) ELT 3 (SC) and held as follows:
M/S. Sl Lumax Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise on 28 August, 2014
11.3. We have earlier in the case of SL Lumax Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Judgment dated 28.8.2014 made in C.M.A.No.1436 of 2014) followed the decision of the Supreme Court in SKF India Ltd. case, referred supra, and dismissed a similar plea raised by the assessee.