Tin Plate Co. Of India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 3 March, 1987
term "fraud". Section 17 of the Contract Act defines "fraud". There is no proof that the appellants intended to deceive
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 142 (0.78 seconds)Sriram Pistons And Rings Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 14 June, 1983
fraud" ?
10. "Fraud", occurring in Clause (9) of the proviso to Rule 10 had not been defined, in the Rules. Going ... facts" occurring in the proviso to Rule 10 after "fraud" fall within the ambit of (i) and (ii) supra in the definition
Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 25 March, 1991
months from the relevant date, the expression relevant date having been defined in clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of that section. Then there ... been defined in clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of that section. We then come to the proviso which refers to cases of fraud, collusion
Gopal Industries Ltd. vs Cce on 29 June, 2007
producer. For the purpose of Section 4 , "assessee" is defined in Sub-section (3)(a) thereof, to mean the person who is liable ... frauds due to the real name of the person concerned being camouflaged by the assumed proprietory name. The word "assessee", as defined
Vashist Ispat Product And Lakshmi Steel ... vs Cce on 30 March, 2007
producer. For the purpose of Section 4 , "assessee" is defined in Sub-section (3)(a) thereof, to mean the person who is liable ... frauds due to the real name of the person concerned being camouflaged by the assumed proprietory name. The word "assessee", as defined
Nizam Sugar Factory vs Collector Of Central Excise on 4 October, 1999
been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention ... issued within five years from the relevant date. Relevant date has been defined in Sub-section (3) to Section 11A and nowhere this sub-section
G.D. Industrial Engineers vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 7 July, 1983
however, a short levy was occasioned by reason of-
(i) fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; or
(ii) contravention ... relevant date" had been separately defined to mean, in the context of the facts of this case, the date when the duty
Collector Of Central Excise vs R.M.D.C. Press (P) Ltd. on 4 March, 1987
defined in that Section for issue of notice of demand of duty and a longer period of 5 years in case involving fraud, collusion, wilful
Collector Of Customs vs Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. on 22 October, 1991
been defined as the date of refund. The section has a time limit of five years if the erroneous refund was caused by fraud, collusion
Collector Of Customs vs Dimple Overseas Ltd. on 22 December, 1994
adhered to especially in situations where otherwise there will be scope for fraud. The Supreme Court decision in the case Indian Aluminium v. Thane Municipality ... under Exports (Control) Order, 1988. Rule 2(h) of Export (Control) Order defines value as having the same meaning as in Section