Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.27 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Ujagar Prints Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 4 November, 1988
27. The validity of the levy of additional duty of excise under the Act has been specifically upheld by the Supreme Court in the Ujagar Prints case where it is said that the additional duty under the Act is of the same nature as the union duty of excise.
Pioneer Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. And Anr., ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 30 September, 1991
30. Following the Hon. Delhi High Court decision in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), we set aside the penalties imposed on BTPL and VEC, and accept the appeals filed by M/s. Bhilwara Textiles (P) Ltd., and M/s. Venus Engineering Corporation. At the same time, subject to what is stated in para 21 above, both the impugned orders in so far as demand of duty is concerned are hereby confirmed, the appeals filed by M/s. Rajasthan Processors (India) Ltd. and M/s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. are rejected and we order accordingly.
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957
Empire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 6 May, 1985
Earlier in the case of Empire Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 1985 (20) E.L.T. 179 (S.C.) the Hon. Supreme Court in para 47 of their judgment have observed as under:
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
In the case of C.A. Abraham Uppottil Kottayam v. Income Tax Officer, Kottayam 1961 (2) SCR 765 the Hon. Supreme Court have held that a penalty is imposed as a part of the machinery for assessment of tax liability.
Parekh Prints vs Union Of India on 9 July, 1991
The Delhi High Court in para 15 of their decision in the case of Parekh Prints v. Union of India - 1992 (62) E.L.T. 253 (Del.), while dealing with the additional duty levied under the Act of 1957 have held that "the Act leaves no room for doubt that it imposes duties of excise which are in addition to the duties of excise under the Act of 1944 and all provisions of 1944 Act in so far those are applicable, apply to the provisions of Act."
Ashoka Dyeing And Finishing Mills vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 March, 1985
In the case of Ashok Dyeing and Finishing Mills v. Collector of Central Excise -1993 (66) E.L.T. 435 (Tribunal) the Tribunal have observed in para 7 of their decision that "the provisions of die Central Excises & Salt Act, relating to confiscation for contravention of the provisions of the excise law would also be within the ambit of the phrase 'levy and collection' as mentioned in Section 3(3) of the Act 58 of 1957."