Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (1.06 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Elpro International Ltd. vs Joint Secretary, Govt. Of India, ... on 10 October, 1984
The learned single Judge, without considering the provisions of either Section 11(BB) or 11-B(2) of the Act straightway allowed the writ petition on the basis of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of ELPRO INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. JOINT SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, reported in 1985 (19) ELT 3 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that..."Since in the instant case, excise duty was wrongly collected in 1966 and the amount was refunded in May, 1977, therefore, it will neither be harsh nor unjust if an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is paid by the Union to the Respondent Company on account of such interest together with the amount of costs."
The Police Act, 1949
Section 12 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 October, 1986
Having carefully gone through the Judgment of the Madras High Court in Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (Supra), it appears that the order passed against the petitioner was set aside by the CEGAT. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court was of the opinion that once the order was set aside by the CEGAT then it automatically follows that the respondents could have sent advise intimating the refund of the pre-deposit made by the petitioner, which they have not done and that at every stage the respondents had been adopting the delaying tactics. Therefore, the petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to refund sum of Rs. 12.5 lakhs and also to return the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 12.5 lakhs within six weeks from the date of the order with interest at 15 % per annum from the date when the reference Application submitted by the Authority came to be rejected.
Section 129E in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Suvidhe Ltd. vs Union Of India on 3 February, 1996
15. This brings us to the Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of SUVIDHE LTD.(Supra). It is no doubt true that the Bombay High Court considered Section 35(F) and 11(B), but surprisingly, without any discussion, the Bombay High Court held that in respect of deposit made u/s.35(F) the provision of Section 11(B) can never be made applicable. If that is so, then the case of the petitioner falls.
Hope Textiles Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 27 October, 1993
14. This brings us to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of MP High Court in the case of HOPE TEXTILES LTD. (supra).