Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Commissioner Of Central Excise Mumbai 1 vs M/S Morarjee Gokuldas Spg.And Wvg.Co. ... on 24 March, 2023 cites

J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. ... vs Union Of India And Others on 16 October, 1980

In October, 1980 vide judgment in the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton 2 Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. vs. Union of India 1981 (8) ELT 887, the Delhi High Court held that removal of yarn which was consumed within the factory for production did not amount to removal within the meaning of Rules 9 & 49 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and hence set aside the duty demand made on such captively consumed yarn. That the respondent company filed a revised classification list wherein, they declared that no duty was payable on the yarn captively consumed. By an order issued in April, 1981 the classification list was rejected by the Department and the respondent – company was directed to file a fresh classification list. The respondent – company filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court being Writ Petition No.1190 of 1981 inter alia challenging the levy and collection of duty on the said yarn captively consumed by them. By judgment and order dated 11.01.1983 the High Court disposed of the said writ petition upholding the validity of Rules 9 and 49 and holding that the recovery 3 could only be done as per the time limit prescribed in Section 11A. That in the year 1983 the respondent – company filed a civil appeal against the said judgment before this Court being Civil Appeal No.320 of 1983. The Company also files application for stay of the operation of the judgment. On 15.03.1983, this Court passed an interim order in the following terms:
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Bajaj Auto Limited vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2019

7.5 The law laid down by this Court in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (supra) as such was binding on the High Court and despite the same was pointed out and 20 pressed into service by the Revenue before the High Court, the High Court has without giving any reasons how the same is misplaced has ignored to follow the decision of this Court in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (supra) and rather has followed its earlier decision in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd (supra) which admittedly was prior to the decision of this Court in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - S K Kaul - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise, ... vs Re-Rolling Mills on 15 July, 1997

7.2 Now so far as the submissions made on behalf of the Assessee relying upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the 18 case of Re-Rolling Mills (supra) and Bajaj Auto Ltd (supra) that for refund of the duty a separate show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act is reviewed and that too within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A and that as such notice under Section 11A must precede within the time limit prescribed under Section 11A before the notice under Section 35E of the Act is concerned, as such the aforesaid issue is now not res integra in view of the direct decision of this Court in the case of Asian Paints (India) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1