Advanced Search Results

Paras Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : ExciseContract

Reported in : 2007(2)WLN567

of IMFL and beer in the wholesale and retail sale in the concerned local groups. On 9.2.1999, the Excise Commissioner issued Notice Inviting Tender in respect of different groups of shops in the State of Rajasthan for … identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.2. The petitions relate to the contracts for sale of country liquor, Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer in various Groups of shops in

Peddi Virayya Vs. Doppalapudi Subba Rao and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : ExciseContract

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 2, 6 and 9; ;Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 23

Reported in : AIR1959AP647

the contract between him and the plaintiff was illegal as being opposed to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act. He also denied having deputed the 2nd defendant to bring any money from the plaintiff.

Paulose Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : ExciseContract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 73 and 74; Madras Sales Tax Act; Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 - Sections 29 and 69; Kerala Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972 - Rules 5(10), 5(15), 6, 6(10), 6(14), (28), 13 and 35; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2005(3)KLT850

arrack could not have been possible to be procured. According to him, exasperated, he had represented to the Excise Commissioner about his predicaments and the Government had also been addressed in the matter. Ultimately, by his letter … recorded that the arguments urged by the petitioners with reference to Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act were to be noticed. The scope and impact of the amendment to Rule 13 of the Abkari

T.S. Govindaraj Vs. A.B. Kandaswami Goundar and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : ExciseContract

Reported in : (1956)2MLJ578

the ground that the partnership put forward by the plaintiff was illegal as being prohibited by the Central Excises Act and the Rules framed thereunder.2. The plaintiff's case was that in or about 1945 he and the … and designed for the securing of revenue, the mere imposition of penalties should not be read as rendering contracts of partnership illegal. Learned Counsel strongly relied upon the short title to the Act which runs : 'An

Jnana Prabodhini Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ExciseContract

Acts : Societies Registration Act, 1860; Public Trusts Act; Central Excises Act, 1944 - Sections 11B; Contract Act,1872 - Sections 22 and 72; Limitation Act, 1908 - Schedule - Article 113; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151; Excise Law; Constitution of India - Articles 226, 265, 300A and 372

Reported in : 1990(1)BomCR763; 1993LC317(Bombay); 1991(54)ELT193(Bom)

this petition -The questions involved in the petition(a) whether the petitioner-trust is entitled to the refund of the excise duty which they paid to the Excise Department under a mistake of law which they claim to have … being one of law. If this is the position, the inexorable provision emanating from Section 22 of the Contract Act must hold the field. Under that provision, any money paid by mistake or under coercion by any

Mamata Drinks and Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) an ...

Court : Orissa

Subject : ExciseContract

Reported in : 1990(29)ECC372

business of manufacture of aerated soft drinks, namely, Gold Spot, Limca and Kismat. These products were liable to excise duty @ 20% ad valorem as aerated water under Tariff Item No. I D of the First Schedule … did not apply as the present was a case of mistake of law attracting Section 72 of the Contract Act because of which the claim for refund could be preferred within three years under the general law

Spl Siddhartha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : ExciseContract

Acts : Customs Act - Sections 121; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2005(188)ELT18(Del)

Swatanter Kumar, J.1. On 9th February, 2005, Deputy Director, Directorate General of Central Excise (Intelligence) R.K. Puram, New Delhi addressed a letter to the Manager (Purchasing and Marketing) of respondent No. 3. … No. E.4(15)/94/PUR.I/CE dated 23.9.04.On perusal of records it is seen that M/s. SPL Siddhartha had entered running rate contract for supply of Godown flooring material used as Dunnage vide your letter No. E.4(15)/94-PUR.I/Vol-III dated 2/3.4.2002 for a

Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Vs. Collector of Customs and Calcutta

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1989)(21)LC125Tri(Delhi)

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

JaIn Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (1990)(27)ECC39

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Tisco Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2006)(112)ECC15

Matched in: Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai