Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.29 seconds)Steel Authority Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 28 June, 1985
In his submission besides the Gujarat High Court judgment in the Torrent Laboratories (supra), the Special Bench C of this Tribunal have in Steel Authorities of India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (42) E.L.T. 686 (T) held in relation to the provisions of Rule 196 of the Rules, that time limit vide Section 11A of the Act would not apply, and for that they have followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector -1984 (17) E.L.T. 205 (T) and Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Collector -1987 (31) E.L.T. 411 (T).
Fertilizer Corporation Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 27 May, 1987
In his submission besides the Gujarat High Court judgment in the Torrent Laboratories (supra), the Special Bench C of this Tribunal have in Steel Authorities of India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (42) E.L.T. 686 (T) held in relation to the provisions of Rule 196 of the Rules, that time limit vide Section 11A of the Act would not apply, and for that they have followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector -1984 (17) E.L.T. 205 (T) and Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Collector -1987 (31) E.L.T. 411 (T).
Torrent Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of Incia on 20 October, 1989
In his submission besides the Gujarat High Court judgment in the Torrent Laboratories (supra), the Special Bench C of this Tribunal have in Steel Authorities of India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (42) E.L.T. 686 (T) held in relation to the provisions of Rule 196 of the Rules, that time limit vide Section 11A of the Act would not apply, and for that they have followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector -1984 (17) E.L.T. 205 (T) and Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Collector -1987 (31) E.L.T. 411 (T).
J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1987
5. Mr. Yakundi, the ld. Advocate for the Respondents has however referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. Union of India - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 234 (SC) and more particularly the observations in para 31 of the said judgment, and also to the decision of this Bench in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Collector, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 578 (T) and has pleaded that Section 11A of the Act is applicable to all the demands of duty and view other than the one adopted by this Bench, in the impugned order which is in due conformity with the law is not... and reference as prayed for is not warranted.
M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs The Collector Of Central Excise on 27 April, 1995
The ratio of the said decision is that, in absence of any specific provision to the contrary, the provisions of Section 11A of the Act would stand attracted. In the instant case, no specific provision contrary to Section 11A is pleaded to have existed.
Indian Farmers Fertilizers Co-Op. Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 14 December, 1988
He has also referred to yet another order from the same Bench in Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co.-Op. Ltd. v. Collector -1991 (51) E.L.T. 527 (T). He submits that thus, the issue is possible to be viewed in different way and hence, reference be made.
Bajaj Tempo Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 27 August, 1993
In his submission besides the Gujarat High Court judgment in the Torrent Laboratories (supra), the Special Bench C of this Tribunal have in Steel Authorities of India Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise -1989 (42) E.L.T. 686 (T) held in relation to the provisions of Rule 196 of the Rules, that time limit vide Section 11A of the Act would not apply, and for that they have followed earlier decisions of the Tribunal in Bajaj Tempo Ltd. v. Collector -1984 (17) E.L.T. 205 (T) and Fertilizer Corporation of India v. Collector -1987 (31) E.L.T. 411 (T).
1