Advanced Search Results

Stadfast Paper Mills Vs. D.R. Kohli, Former Collector of Central Excis ...

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 9B and 10; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 10 and 36; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985

Reported in : 1983LC717D(Gujarat); 1983(12)ELT744(Guj)

thereafter on 12th September, 1962, the petitioner entered into a bond in form B-13 under rule 9-B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the purpose of payment of excise duty for future. Rule 9-B provides for provisional assessment to duty … basis. Thereafter, on 20th September, 1962, the Inspector of Central Excise Vapi, issued a notice of demand under rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 asking the petitioner-firm to pay up the differential amount of excise duty

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Binny Ltd.

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Excise

Acts : Cotton Cess Act, 1923 - Sections 14; ;Produce Cess Act, 1966 - Sections 2 and 15(2); Produce Cess Rules, 1969 - Rule 6; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 10 and 10A

Reported in : ILR1990KAR3051

learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the 1966 Act and Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereas the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel placed reliance on Rule … period of limitation is prescribed...The liability under the Act once incurred, is not extinguished. - Section 11-A & Central Excise Rules, 1944, Rule 173-G: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Black Boards - Authorities classified black boards manufactured by petitioners are dutiable under

Mehendra Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 4, 10, 10(2), 11, 12, 18, 96V, 96W and 173J; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 3, 4, 6, 11A, 12 and 37;

Reported in : 1989(19)ECC118; 1989(23)LC123(Gujarat); 1988(36)ELT563(Guj)

prejudice to the generality of the fore-going power, such rules can be framed by the Central Government. The Central Excise Rules, 1944 have been framed by the then Central Government in exercise of the said powers and these rules have … Collector of Central Excise may, in any particular case, allow.' These two rules were amalgamated and a new Rule 10 was enacted with effect from 6th August, 1977. New rule 10 read as under :- Rule 10. Recovery

D.N. Kohli, Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Vs. Krishna Silicate a ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excises Act, 1944 - Sections 4; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 7, 9, 9-B, 9-B(2), 10, 10-A, 47, 52, 93 and 153; Finance Act; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 1983(12)ELT216(Bom)

be removed from the factory the Company used to submit returns in AR 1 form prescribed under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Pending the verification and determination of the price for the purpose of … 1968. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention of the Company that the notices of demand were time-barred under Rule 10 observing that they wee governed by Rule 10A. He also pointed out that the statement in the notices

Andhra Re-rolling Works, Hyderabad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 10 and 10A; Central Excise Act, 1944

Reported in : AIR1986SC1964; 1986(9)ECC282; 1986LC344(SC); 1986(25)ELT3(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1208; 1986(Supp)SCC263; [1986]2SCR1001; [1987]64STC139(SC); 1986(2)LC279(SC)

petitioner from untested rails. The demand notices were purported to have been issued under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant filed a written representation to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad contending that the demand for

Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. U.O.i.

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 10 and 57-I; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 3, 4, 4(1), 4(4), 6, 11A, 12, 37, 37(1), 37(5) and 38

Reported in : 1991(55)ELT467(Guj)

Central Excise, Porbandar had issued a show cause notice dated 19-1-76 (Annexure H) under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'. By that notice the petitioner was called upon to show cause why

Patel Prabhudas Purshottamdas Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 10; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4, 11A, 35, 35A, 36 and 36(2)

Reported in : 1982(10)ELT112(Bom)

Matched in: Citation 1982(10)ELT112(Bom)

Arlabs Ltd. Vs. A.K. Bandyopadhyay

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 8, 10 and 10-A; Finance Act, 1961

Reported in : 1981(8)ELT684(Bom)

dated December 24, 1965 and January 24, 1966 purported to have been issued under rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 and demanding from the Company payment of the two respective sums of Rs. 41,152.25 and Rs. 83,238.14 as

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1986)(6)LC27Tri(Delhi)

had been no suppression of facts on the part of the appellant and there is no mention of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in the show cause notice. There are also no allegations of clandestine … Revenue that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rules 9 (1), 173-B, 173-C and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 inasmuch as he had removed 156.87 million cubic metre of coke oven gas assessable under Tariff Item 68

Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Excise

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 226; Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 27; Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 2, 8, 10, 10(1), 11, 12 and 173J; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 3, 4, 35, 35A, 36(2), 37 and 38

Reported in : 1981(8)ELT565(Mad)

alleged excess duty paid should have been claimed within the time limit prescribed under rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the Rules) read with rule 173-J of the Rules, and inasmuch as the petitioner's claim for … was called upon to show cause why the refund amount of Rs. 8,28,021.43, should not be demanded under rule 10(1) of the rules. Hence, this writ petition for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the first