Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.18 seconds)
Ispat Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 December, 2004 cites

Anjali Coolers (P) Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 31 March, 1997

a) that in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal has powers to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. Applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anjali Cooler Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (94) ELT 40, wherein the High Court has by relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd v. UOI and that, Allahabad High Court in the case of Arvi Components Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (90) ELT 299, held that resort to coercive measures for recovery of disputed amounts, while a stay application is pending before an appellate authority is a gross abuse of the process of law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 December, 1993

a) that in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal has powers to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. Applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anjali Cooler Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (94) ELT 40, wherein the High Court has by relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd v. UOI and that, Allahabad High Court in the case of Arvi Components Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (90) ELT 299, held that resort to coercive measures for recovery of disputed amounts, while a stay application is pending before an appellate authority is a gross abuse of the process of law.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Arvi Components (P) Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 24 April, 1996

a) that in terms of Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal has powers to make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. Applicant has placed reliance on the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Anjali Cooler Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (94) ELT 40, wherein the High Court has by relying upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gajra Bevel Gears Ltd v. UOI and that, Allahabad High Court in the case of Arvi Components Pvt Ltd v. UOI 1997 (90) ELT 299, held that resort to coercive measures for recovery of disputed amounts, while a stay application is pending before an appellate authority is a gross abuse of the process of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1