Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.28 seconds)
J S W Energy Ltd vs Vijayawada on 13 August, 2025 cites

Collector Of Central Excise,Kanpur vs Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. C-7, Panki ... on 4 August, 2000

20. Learned AR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Kanpur Vs Flock (India) Pvt Ltd (supra), wherein it was held that "where an adjudicating authority has passed an order which is appealable under the statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. If this position is accepted then the provisions for adjudication in the Act and the Rules, the provision for appeal in the Act and the Rules will lose their relevance and the entire exercise will be rendered redundant. This position in our view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot, be countenanced."
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 233 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

M/S. Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd vs Cc, New Delhi on 4 March, 2014

25. Learned AR has relied on the decision in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi [2015 (12) TMI 520 - CESTAT New Delhi], wherein, it was held that "what that is envisaged by this section is only to make effort to rectify a clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order passed by Central Government. When the order passed by the authority at the time of clearance remains unchallenged, re- assessment/re-determination making extensive enquiry is not subject of Section 154. Therefore, amendment sought by the appellant taking Shelter of Section 154 neither being clerical error nor arithmetical mistakes, there is no scope for grant any relief under Section 154."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sony India Ltd. on 21 July, 2000

15. Learned Counsel also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs Sony India (supra), wherein, it was held that an amendment application is permissible in case of incorrect determination of duty by the assessing authority initially. It is also not applicable in the instant case because it is not a case of amendment but it is a case of replacement by new order. Adjudicating Authority has no power to review his own order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next