Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Central Excise Chennai vs T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. Hosur on 6 August, 2003
The judgment of this Court in the case of TVS
Suzuki Ltd. (supra), therefore, supports the view which
we have taken herein above that refund consequent upon
finalization of provisional assessment did not attract the
bar of unjust enrichment.
Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc on 7 October, 1983
ON 11.8.1986, NIIL filed refund
claims for Rs.60,19,238.65 for recovery of excise duty
between the period 1.11.1981 to 31.10.1984. On
29.9.1986 another refund claim for Rs.42,77,358.59 was
lodged for recovery of excise duty during the period
1.11.1978 to 31.10.1981. Similarly on 7.4.1987 another
refund claim was lodged for excise duty paid in excess
during the period 1.3.1974 to 31.10.1978 by NIIL
amounting to Rs.22,38,391.72. These refund claims were
made in view of judgment of this Court in the case of
Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International
Ltd. reported in [AIR 1984 SC 420]. On 7.4.1987, NIIL
made a consolidated refund claim of Rs. 1,25,34,988.97
for the entire period from 1.3.1974 to 31.10.1984. In
respect of these refund claims the Department served a
show cause notice and ultimately the Assistant Collector
granted refund to NIIL only for two months preceding the
lodgment of the claim. On 13.4.1987, NIIL filed Writ
Petition No. 1336 of 1987 in the High Court challenging
the order of Assistant Collector denying refund except for
two months. That writ petition came for hearing before
learned Single Judge on 29.8.1988. The learned Judge
held that the action of the Department in collecting duty
not on the sale price of NIIL to M/s AGIL was illegal and,
therefore, NIIL was entitled to refund. However, since the
question of unjust enrichment was debatable, the learned
Judge referred the question to the Full Bench.
Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 16 April, 2002
We may also
point out that the judgment in the case of Sinkhai
Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is based on
the concession made by the counsel appearing on behalf
of the Department. That judgment is, therefore, per
incuriam.
Section 118 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
As stated above, para 104 of the judgment in the
case Mafatlal Industries Ltd. (supra) states that if refund
arises upon finalization of provisional assessment, section
11B will not apply. Para 104 of the said judgment does
not deal with payment under protest.