S. B. SINHA, S. H. KAPADIA
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai-ii – Appellant
Versus
Allied Photographics India LTD. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Kapadia, J.-Finding inconsistencies between two decisions of three-Judge Benches of this Court in the case of Sinkhai Synthetics and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [2002 (143) ELT 17] and Collector of Central Excise, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd. [2003 (156) ELT 161] on one hand and the decision of nine-Judge Constitution Bench in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1997) 5 SCC 536] on the other, a two-Judge Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.11.2003 has referred the following question of law involved in this civil appeal to a larger Bench and accordingly the matter has come before this court.
"Whether a claim for refund after final assessment is governed by Section 11 B of the Central Excise Act 1944?
FACTS :
2. New India Industries Ltd. (NIIL) is incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and carries on business of manufacturing photographic printing paper which became chargeable to excise duty vide tariff item No. 37-C(2) of the Central Excise Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with effect from March 1, 1974. NIIL had entered into distribution agreement with a firm, Agfa Gevaert (India) Ltd. (M/s AGIL) for supply of goods. On 8.
Sinkhai Synthetics and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise
Collector of Central Excise, Chennai v. T.V.S. Suzuki Ltd.
New India Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
National Winders v. Collector of Central Excise
Union of India & Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.
CCE v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.
Atic Industries Ltd. v. H.H. Dave, Asstt. Collector of Central Excise
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.