Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
M/S Bal Pharma Limited vs Principal Commissioner And Additional ... on 14 March, 2023 cites

Um Cables Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 24 April, 2013

16. It is relevant to note that in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (supra), the petitioner therein relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in UM Cables Limited v. Union of India: 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.), however, the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not consider the said decision as it found that the question was also covered by two other decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said two earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were not mentioned in the said decision.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

M/S Cil Textile Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India, Through The ... on 18 July, 2014

16. It is relevant to note that in M/s CIL Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (supra), the petitioner therein relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in UM Cables Limited v. Union of India: 2013 (293) E.L.T. 641 (Bom.), however, the Madhya Pradesh High Court did not consider the said decision as it found that the question was also covered by two other decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The said two earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were not mentioned in the said decision.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asiatic Colourr Chem. Industries Ltd vs Commissioner Central ... on 22 February, 2017

".......mere non-production of the ARE-1 form would not ipso facto result in the invalidation of the rebate claim. In such a case, it is open to the exporter to demonstrate by the production of cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read together with the notification dated 6 September, 2004 have been fulfilled. As we have noted, the primary requirements which have to be established by the exporter are that the claim for rebate relates to goods which were exported and that the goods which were exported were of a duty paid character. We may also note at this stage that the attention of the Court has been drawn to an order dated 23 December 2010 passed by the revisional authority in the case of the Petitioner itself by which the non-production of the ARE-1 form was not regarded as invalidating the rebate claim and the proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September, 2004 [Order No.1754/2010-CX, dated 20 December, 2010 of D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the record other orders passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar view [Garg Tex-O-Feb Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 449] and Hebenkraft - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 979. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 367, Model Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise- 2007 (217) E.L.T. 264 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO -
Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central G.S.T. & ... vs M/S Tisco Growth Shop & Others on 1 September, 2020

".......mere non-production of the ARE-1 form would not ipso facto result in the invalidation of the rebate claim. In such a case, it is open to the exporter to demonstrate by the production of cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the rebate sanctioning authority that the requirements of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read together with the notification dated 6 September, 2004 have been fulfilled. As we have noted, the primary requirements which have to be established by the exporter are that the claim for rebate relates to goods which were exported and that the goods which were exported were of a duty paid character. We may also note at this stage that the attention of the Court has been drawn to an order dated 23 December 2010 passed by the revisional authority in the case of the Petitioner itself by which the non-production of the ARE-1 form was not regarded as invalidating the rebate claim and the proceedings were remitted back to the adjudicating authority to decide the case afresh after allowing to the Petitioner an opportunity to produce documents to prove the export of duty paid goods in accordance with the provisions of Rule 18 read with notification dated 6 September, 2004 [Order No.1754/2010-CX, dated 20 December, 2010 of D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary, Government of India under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944]. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has also placed on the record other orders passed by the revisional authority of the Government of India taking a similar view [Garg Tex-O-Feb Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 449] and Hebenkraft - 2001 (136) E.L.T. 979. The CESTAT has also taken the same view in its decisions in Shreeji Colour Chem Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 367, Model Buckets & Attachments (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise- 2007 (217) E.L.T. 264 and Commissioner of Central Excise v. TISCO -
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - A K Singh - Full Document
1