Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.43 seconds)Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
8. Suffice it to refer to nine Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., wherein the Supreme Court held that the claim of refund to be made under the Central Excise Act has to be preferred within the period of limitation prescribed under the said Act. With this firm legal position laid down by the Supreme Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rule 12 of Rules of 1944 enables the Assistant Collector to waive the period of limitation cannot be accepted. Proviso to Rule 12 enables the Collector to waive any of the conditions laid down in the notification but that enabling power shall not include the power to extend, waive or dispense with the period of limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Act.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1