Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.78 seconds)V. Lakshmanan vs B.R. Mangalagiri & Ors on 13 December, 1994
In V. Lakshmanan v. B.R. Mangalagiri and Ors. [1995 Supp.(2) SCC
33] , the Supreme Court in regard to interpretation of the clause stipulating
the payment of money as advance and not earnest money provided for in the
Sale Deed opined :
Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. & ... vs M/S. J.D. Pharmaceuticals & Anr on 7 October, 2005
10. In Assam Small Scale Ind. Dev. Corp. Ltd. and Ors. v. J.D.
Pharmaceuticals and Anr. [2005 (8) SCALE 298 = (2005) 13 SCC 19], on
the decisiveness of the nomenclature of the agreement entered into between
the state corporation and small scale industrial unit, opined:
Section 2 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Prabhat Zarda Factory (India) Ltd. And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Patna on 12 September, 2001
5. Mr. P.K. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant,
drawing our attention to the impugned order, would submit that from a bare
perusal thereof, it would be evident that the appellant merely accepts offer
on behalf of its principal and its activities being not extended to the job of a
clearing and forwarding agent, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
It was urged that the authorities under the Act in determining the
liabilities of the appellant had proceeded only on the premise that a
processing agent would be a clearing and forwarding agent as was held in
the case of Prabhat Zarda Factor (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna [2002 (145) ELT
222] which having subsequently been overruled by the larger Bench of the
Tribunal, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Section 68 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 70 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 77 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Larsen And Tourbo Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 16 February, 2006
16. The High Court also, while distinguishing the judgment of the larger
Bench of the Tribunal, in Larsen & Tourbo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Chennai [(2006) 3 STR 321 (T-LB)] and Medpro Pharma Pvt. Ltd.
v. CCE, Chennai [(2006) 3 STR 355 (T-LB), opined :
1