Advanced Search Results

Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : SicaExcise

Acts : Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35F

Reported in : [1996]85CompCas743(Delhi)

by Mr. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was a sick industrial company under the Sica and that in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Rubber Reclaim Company v. Union of … under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated March 17, 1994 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (CEGAT) passed under section 35-F of the Central Excises & Salt

Swaraj Majda Limited Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Subject : ExciseSICA

Reported in : 1995IIAD(Delhi)300; 1995(33)DRJ438; 1995(80)ELT242(Del); ILR1995Delhi567

by Mr. Sorabjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was a sick industrial company under the SICA and that in view of the judgment of this Court in M/s. Rubber Reclaim Company v. Union of … under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated March 17, 1994 of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (CEGAT) passed under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt

Polymermann (Asia) P. Ltd. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : ExciseSICA

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3(1), 16, 16(1), 17, 22, 22(1) and 22(5); Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 25; Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 11; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : [2006]133CompCas894(Bom); [2008]81SCL46(Bom)

No. 219/2004. The petitioner-Company contends that an enquiry is deemed to have commenced under section 16(1) of the SICA in the matter of petitioner-Company. Thus, in view of the bar/embargo imposed by the provisions of section 22(1) … operation.4. The petitioner-Company states that it has received a letter from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs-Respondent No.4 herein, in July 2004, claiming interest in the sum of Rs. 5,22,847 alleging default of

Texplast Engineers Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Gujarat

Subject : ExciseSICA

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 22(1); ;Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2005(182)ELT150(Guj)

as a sick industrial company under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ('the SICA' for short) and that, therefore, no coercive action can be taken against the petitioners for recovery of the … petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution is the Order dated 28-11-2003 (Annexure 'B') passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in Stay Application Nos. 1066 to 1068 of 2003 in Appeal Nos.

Ramanasekar Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu

Subject : Service Tax

Reported in : (2008)9STR132

STR 426 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was held that the declaration by BIFR of a company "sick" under the SICA was no ground for leniency in demand of interest on service tax amount paid belatedly. The JDR has … has relied on the decision of this Bench in Sree Vadivambigai Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai [2006] 3 STR 426 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was held that the declaration by BIFR of a company

Balaji Distilleries Ltd. Vs. the Secretary to Government, State of Tam ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Sales Tax/VAT

Acts : Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 3(1), 5(1), 13(4), 13A, 15 to 22, 22(1), 22(5), 22A and 25; Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 17; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Regulations - Regulation 19 and 19(5); Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006; Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1989; Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002 - Sections 5 and 13(4); Companies Act, 1956; Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947; Gujarat Sales Tax Act; Central Sales Tax Act, 1956; Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948; Uttar Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1890; Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864

Reported in : (2008)17VST59(Mad)

2007 payable in April 2007) need not be paid under the cover of protection under Section 22 of SICA. Therefore, the request of the company in not to collect the current taxes, relating to the amount of … around Rs. 1000 crores from the above distillery and brewery units to the State exchequer by way of excise duty, sales tax, etc. During the financial year 2000-01 onwards, the company was suffering considerable loss, which resulted

Crystal Cable Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and or ...

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Excise

Acts : Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; ;Central Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 4, 35F, 35G, 35G(1), 35G(3), 35G(4), 35G(5) and 35G(6); ;Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Section 22; ;Customs Act, 1963 - Section 35F; ;Constitution of India - Article 226

financial conditions the pre-deposit may be waived. We are unable to accept this view because Section 22 of SICA will have no application to the provisions of Section 35G, as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in … J.1. This writ application is directed against an order No. 5-288/Kol/2006 dated 17th March, 2006 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as the CESTAT, whereby the CESTAT has rejected the prayer

Pasupati Haryana Woolen Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Sales Tax

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19; Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 - Sections 13B; Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975 - Rule 28A, 28A(9) and 28A(11); Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 15(1)

Reported in : [2002]125STC463(P& H)

without depositing the sale proceeds with the Bank/Institution in violation of the directions given under Section 22A of SICA'. Thus, the petitioner deserves no sympathy.11. As noticed at the outset, the two questions that arise for consideration … an appeal. It was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated July 19, 1999. Thereafter, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Rewari, called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the exemption certificate be

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. Kurukunta Cement Factory, Represented ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Acts : Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Sections 7(7); Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 - Sections 16, 17, 22, 22(3) and 22(4); Companies Act, 1956; Central Excise Act - Sections 35F

Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ387; (2008)ILLJ26Kant; 2007(4)AIRKarR188.

the claims against the sick industry got automatically suspended by virtue of operation of Section 22(3) of the SICA. He also pointed out that the SICA has an overriding effect on all other enactment. He referred to … India and Ors. reported in : 1999ECR183(SC) and submitted that in the said case, for recovery of central excise duty where an appeal was required to be filed by the sick industry under Section 35F of the

Nirmal Steel Tubes (i) Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Subject : Excise

Reported in : (1995)LC61Tri(Delhi)

contention of the petitioner is to be examined in the light of the provisions of Section 22 of SICA, 1985.Learned advocate has not made any submission apart from stressing on the provisions of the SICA, 1985, that … of reviving a sick industry. He submitted that the effect of any order under Section 35F of Central Excises & Salt Act if not complied with would result in dismissal of the appeal and as a consequence