Allahabad Court May 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Super Electronics Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-04-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC651; 1999(113)ELT792(All)
ORDERS.L. Saraf, J1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Kesherwani appearing for the Union of India.2. By this petition the petitioner claims payment of interest on the amount of refund under the provisions of Section 11-BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as the Act).3. The case of the petitioner is that by the order of the Tribunal dated 28-8-1998 the petitioner succeeded in appeal and it became entitled to refund from authority concerned. However, since there was delayed payment of more than 3 months, the petitioner was entitled to get interest on the amount of refund. The same was denied by the Tribunal vide order dated 28th August, 1998 by observing in para 11 of the order which reads as under: As regards the claim for interest for delayed refunds under Section 11BB, we find that the said provisions applied to duty ordered to be refunded under Section 11B(2). In the instant case, there is no order passed by the Assistant Co...
Kisan Crusher and Another Vs. Deputy Cane Commissioner, Meerut and Ano ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1854
M. C. Agarwal, J.1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the Khandsari Inspector-cum-Assessing Officer, Roorkee rejecting the petitioner's option made under Section 3 (1-a) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and an order dated 24.2.1998 passed by the Deputy Sugar Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's revision petition against the first mentioned order.2. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged.3. I have heard Sri P. C. Pathak, Advocate holding brief from Sri V. K. Shukla, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. D, Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents.4. The petitioner owned a sugar unit as defined in the Act and by virtue of Section 3 of the Act was liable to pay tax on the purchase of sugarcane. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section and Section 3 (1-a) of the Act provides for the levy of taxon the assumed purcha...
Narendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: (1999)2UPLBEC1386
A.K.Yog, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Narendra Singh Son of Baba Singh (petitioner) claiming a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to work in view of order dated 5-9-1995 (Annexure 6 to the petition), by means of which he was reinstated, to treat the petitioner in service by not giving effect to the order of termination dated 28-4-1995, to regularise the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on Class IV post in the department of the Government of U.P., to pay him arears of difference of pay from the date of initial appointment on Class IV post in the department, to issue a writ as this Court may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case and award cost of the petition.2. Petitioner contended that he was appointed, through selection, on the post of Tube-well Assistant against a clear vacancy on the basis of an appointment letter dated 21-8-89 (Annexure 1 to the petition). It is contended that his duties and responsibilitie...
Net Plast Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. (Appeals)
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: May-03-1999
Reported in: 1999(66)ECC650
ORDERM.C. Agarwal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 31-3-1999 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad whereby in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, he has partially waived the condition of pre-deposit.2. I have heard Shri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surya Prakash, learned Counsel for the respondent.3. Excise duty of Rs. 2,25,857 and a penalty of Rs. 50,000 has been levied on the petitioner by the Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise who has found that the petitioner has wrongly availed Modvat credit. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner which is pending and in which the impugned order has been passed. Section 35F requires the adjudicated dues to be deposited before the appeal can be entertained but the proviso confers power on the appellate authority to waive the condition o...