Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.50 seconds)
M/S. Mangalam Organics Ltd vs Union Of India on 24 April, 2017 cites

Collector Of Central Excise, Jaipur ... vs Rajasthan State Chemical Works ... on 17 September, 1991

As per the appellant, in the second survey, this general practice stood established. For this purpose, the appellant is relying upon certain extracts from the Noting dated 20.05.2014 of the Commissioner (Central Excise). The said Noting, when read in entirety, does not categorically admit of any such practice. What it reveals is that in the second survey it was found that 37 unregistered units had crossed SSI exemption limit at least once, but they were not paying duty during the period in question. From this the Director in his note had observed that there was practice of not paying the duty. However, what is significant is that the Commissioner (Central Excise) in his Note dated 20.05.2014 specifically stated that he was not in agreement with the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Director, which was highly debatable. He remarked that despite the judgment of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, Deedwana, Rajasthan[10], relevant question was as to whether there was a practice and non-levy of duty during the relevant period. This is because Section 11C of the Act comes into play only when legally the duty is levied but still there is a practice of non-levy of duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 125 - M F Beevi - Full Document

Census Commissioner & Ors vs R.Krishamurthy on 7 November, 2014

Issuance of a notification under Section 11C of the Act is in the nature of subordinate legislation. Directing the Government to issue such a notification would amount to take a policy decision in a particular manner, which is impermissible. This Court dealt with this aspect recently in the case of Census Commissioner and Ors. Vs. R. Krishnamurthy[12]. Following discussion from the said judgment is useful and worth a quote:
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 146 - D Misra - Full Document

Suresh Seth vs Commissioner, Indore Municipal ... on 6 October, 2005

In this context, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Seth v. Commr., Indore Municipal Corporation : (2005) 13 SCC 287 wherein a prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for appropriate amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely, that of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and also of a Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. Repelling the said submission, the Court held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 67 - G P Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 Next