Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)W.P.I.L. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 22 February, 2005
10. As we find that the compounded rubber was also
rescinded by the same Notification dated 1-3-94 and reintroduced
in the same manner vide another Notification issued on 28-3-
1994, ratio of W.P. I.L. Ltd. case shall squarely apply to the
present case as well. As a result, only on this ground, these
appeals are allowed and the demand raised against the appellants
is quashed."
Collector Of Central Excise, Shillong vs Wood Craft Products Ltd on 20 March, 1995
"15. The learned Counsel for the appellant is also right in
relying upon a decision of this Court in Collector of Central
Excise, Shillong v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., [(1995) 3 SCC
454]. In that case, this Court held that a clarificatory
notification would take effect retrospectively. Such a
notification merely clarifies the position and makes explicit
what was implicit. Clarificatory notifications have been issued
to end the dispute between the parties.
M/S. Ralson (India) Ltd. vs Commnr. Of Central Excise Chandigarh I on 13 March, 2015
4. Further, in the case of Ralson (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
C. Ex., Chandigarh-I, 2015 319 E.L.T. 234 (S.C.), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court have held that when the Government rectifies an
inadvertent error by way of issuance of the notification, then the
same should be treated as corrective/clarificatory and will have
retrospective effect. The relevant paragraphs are quoted herein
below:
1