Advanced Search Results

Commnr. of Customs, Central Excise, Noida Vs. Punjab Fibres Ltd., Noid ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35, 35(1), 35C, 35E(3), 35G, 35H and 35H(1); Finance Act, 1999 - Sections 128; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; General Clauses Act; Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110 and 110A(3)

Reported in : 2008(125)ECC195; 2008(151)LC195(SC); 2008(223)ELT337(SC); JT2008(2)SC458; 2008(2)SCALE469; (2008)3SCC73; [2008]13STT112; 2008(2)Supreme12

of law arising from such order of the Tribunal.3. Section 35H was substituted by Section 128 of the Finance Act, 1999. The High Court dismissed the reference application holding that it had no power to condone the delay in … to the respondent for instituting a suit for recovery of damages. In March, 1967 the Claims Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was constituted, barring the jurisdiction of the civil court and prescribed 60

Coromandel Fertilisers Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)90ITD344(Hyd.)

has brought in the necessary amendment under Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) with effect from 1.4.2000 by the Finance Act, 1999. Section 43(6) (c) (i) (C) provides for the decrease, in a slump sale, of the w.d.v. of the assets

Ajay Kumar Saha and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Patna

Subject : Criminal

were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 for violation of Government of India, Ministry of Finance Notification No. 9/96-Cus, dated 22-1-1996 issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 … grounds for release of the betelnuts is failure on the part of the Custom authorities to comply with Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. The first petitioner asserts that he had purchased 10 bags of Assam Kata

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Pep Infotech Ltd.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2001)(127)ELT149TriDel

by the Revenue in the appeal is that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, the demand of duty raised in the SCN dated 17-5-1999 for the period prior to the circular

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Suchitra Components

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2005)(100)ECC59

the period prior to 9.7.90.5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 provides that any notice issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act demanding duty on account … the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 451 (SC) : 1999 (113) ELT 353 (SC). She, further, mentioned that on Appeal, the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 13.1.2003

Bharat Carbon and Ribbon Mfg. Co. Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2005)(99)ECC595

Cotspun Ltd., 2000 (69) ECC 451 (SC) : 1999 (113) ELT 353 (SC); that Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 which validates the action taken under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act has been given retrospective

M/S. Guru Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce, New Delhi

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2001)(76)ECC713

1991 (55) ELT 433. He finally submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, demand can be raised for past six months period even if the classification list has been approved.4. … the approved classification list; that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in CCE vs. Cotspun Ltd., 1999 (113) ELT 353 (SC), differential duty cannot be recovered on the ground of short levy when duty cannot

M.G. Electronics Vs. Cce

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Service Tax

(34) RLT - 709, the demand was held time bar. Consequent to retrospective amendment of Section 11A by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, if the classification is found otherwise than what has been approved, then the … of the provisions relating to time bar in Central Excise Act (Section 11A) with retrospective effect in the Finance Act, 2000 which received the ascent of the President on 12.5.2000. This application for rectification of mistake was rejected … decision of the Supreme Court; in CCE, Baroda v. Cotspum Ltd. - 1999 (34) RLT - 709, the demand was held time bar. Consequent to

Assotex Engineering Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner. C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2000)(119)ELT742TriDel

the decision in the case of Cotspun Limited (Supra) has been taken away by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 which provides as under: "Section 110. Validation of action taken under section 11A of Act 1 of … the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Limited, reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 353 (S.C.) in which it was held that the demand for differential duty can be made

Netplast Limited Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (2000)(122)ELT88TriDel

E.L.T. 353 (S.C.)], submitted that such decisions were no longer binding in view of Section 110(2) of the Finance Act, 2000.He, therefore, prayed for rejecting the appeal.4. We find that the demand of differential duty was raised by