Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)Section 14 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Basudev Garg vs Commissioner Of Customs on 12 April, 2013
(v) Given the above deficiencies, cross
examination was sought by the appellant of
JKS (see p. 116, 119, 127 of Appeal), but
denied on the apprehension by the
adjudicating authority that the appellant
was trying to delay the proceeding (see
pgs.226-227 OIO, particularly para 100
thereof). The adjudication is therefore in
violation of natural justice principles [see
Basudev Garg Vs. CCE reported in 2013
(294) ELT 353 (Del.)]
Section 138B in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S Meenakshi Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Nagpur on 24 August, 2009
(iv)Translated true typed copy of this handwritten
statement was never provided to the
Page 13 of 48
Appeal Nos.: E/78435-78438/2018-DB
appellant [see Meenakshi Re-rollers Pvt.
Ltd. v. CCE, 2010 (249) E.L.T. 255 (Tri. -
Mumbai)
M/S Hi-Tech Needles (P) Limited vs Cc, Allahabad on 11 October, 2011
- Mumbai); Hi Tech Abrasives Ltd.
v CC, 2018 (362) ELT 961 (Chhatisgarh)]
26 Statement of (iv)In answer to Q.7, he clearly fails to identify the
Deepak Kr. proprietor of the transporter, Satyam
Agarwal, Roadlines and mentions one "Rupesh
Director of Singh" as the owner. The SCN and OIO
SSIL, SSL presumed that he stated "Jitesh Kumar
[see p.50, 93 Singh", which is inaccurate and shows that
Appeal; p. the statement contradicts the allegations
173 of made and is unreliable.
Section 108 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Jindal Drugs Private Limited vs The Union Of India on 1 October, 2019
15. It has been held in a catena of
judgments including Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd.
versus Union Of India [2016 (340) E.L.T. 67
(P&H)] that section 9D is a mandatory
provision and if the procedure prescribed
therein is not followed, statements cannot be
used as evidence in the proceedings under
Central Excise Act. *****
M/S Ambika International vs Union Of India And Another on 17 June, 2016
In taking this view, we find
support from the decision in the case of Ambica
International v. UOI rendered by the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana." (emphasis supplied)