RANJAN GOGOI, UDAY UMESH LALIT, K. M. JOSEPH
Steel Authority of India Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. A Bench of two judges doubted the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Bench of two learned judges of this Court in CCE v. SKF India Ltd. 2009 (13) SCC 461 (hereinafter referred to as the “SKF Case”) as also the another judgment rendered by the same Bench in CCE v. International Auto Ltd. 2010 (2) SCC 672 and on the said basis to resolve the controversy the matter stood posted before us.
2. Very briefly put, the question which we are called upon to consider and resolve is as to whether interest is payable on the differential excise duty with retrospective effect that become payable on the basis of escalation clause under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
3. In this batch of appeals, we will treat C.A. No.2150/2012 as the leading case. We will refer to the said case as the SAIL Case. In the said case originally, the appellant company which is manufacturer of various products including rail sold the same to the Indian Railways. The products were cleared on sale from 1st January, 2005 to July 2006. The goods were cleared on the payment of excise duty on the payment of price which was fixed based on their
CCE v. International Auto Ltd.
Steel Authority of India v. CCE
MRF Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras
Purolator India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise
India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam
E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. A. Gajapathy Naidu, Madras
Vikrant Tyres Ltd. v. First Income Tax Officer, Mysore
E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd. v. CCT
Rainbow Industries (P) Ltd. v. CCE
Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Ltd.
M/s. Eastland Combines, Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore
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.