Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2002 2002 (4) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 461 to 480 of 535 Records

• 2002 (4) TMI 76
  
  Issues Involved: Appeal against Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order regarding classification of block board under Tariff Entry 4410.90, refund of duty paid, limitation period for recovery of refund, obligation of assessee to make restitution.
  
  Classification Issue: The assessee classified block board under Tariff Entry 4410.90 with 'nil' rate of duty, but the Assistant Commissioner classified it under Tariff Entry 4408.90 attracting excise duty. Tribunal upheld the assessee's contention, leading to a refund by the Revenue. However, Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal's order, requiring the assessee to repay the refunded duty amounts within a specified time frame.
  
  Limitation Period for Recovery: The Revenue demanded repayment of the refunded duty amounts beyond six months, contending that the claim was not barred by limitation. The Tribunal, relying on Section 11A of the Act, held that recovery of alleged erroneous refund must be within six months from the date of refund. Consequently, the demand for return of refunds was deemed unjustified and set aside.
  
  Restitution Obligation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the assessee was obligated to make restitution of the refunded amounts to the Revenue following the reversal of the Tribunal's order. Despite the Tribunal's decision, the Court held that the assessee was legally bound to restitute the refunded sums to the Revenue, especially considering the undertaking given by the assessee.
  
  Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeals, directing the assessee to repay the refunded amounts within twelve weeks, along with interest at twelve percent per annum from a specified date. Additionally, the assessee was ordered to bear the costs of the appeals, highlighting the legal obligation of the assessee to make restitution in such circumstances.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 75
  

  Whether the assessee and the chemical company were "related persons" and that the price at which the assessee sold glassware to the chemical company should be marked up for the purposes of valuation for excise duty?

  Held that:- The shareholders of a public limited company do not, by reason only of their shareholding, have an interest in the business of the company. Equally, the fact that two public limited companies have common Directors does not mean that the one company has an interest in the business of the other. It is, therefore, not possible to uphold the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee and the chemical company were related persons. This being so, it is unnecessary to go into the alternate arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee. Thus the appeal succeeds, the Revenue shall refund to the assessee the deposit towards duty and the bank guarantee for the balance shall stand discharged.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 74
  
  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the assessee who assembled mobile workshops with steel tables and cupboards. The Revenue claimed excise duty on these items under Tariff Item 40, but the Court found them to be specially designed for mobile service units and not general furniture. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under appeal was set aside. No costs were ordered.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 73
  
  The Supreme Court clarified that a manufacturer can avail of an exemption under a notification if they affix a brand or trade name of an eligible person. If the brand or trade name belongs to an ineligible person, the manufacturer is not entitled to the exemption. The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were ordered. Civil Appeal No. 901/1995 was dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 72
  
  The Revenue filed a petition challenging the Tribunal's decision to vacate a penalty equal to duty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal's decision was upheld as Section 11AC was not retrospective. The Revenue's request to proceed under Rule 173Q was rejected as it was not raised before the Tribunal. The petition was dismissed.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 71
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules.
  2. Allegations of misstatement of facts and suppression of relevant information by the petitioners.
  3. Discrepancies in the statements made by the petitioners before the Supreme Court and the High Court.
  4. Application of legal principles regarding disclosure of material facts in court proceedings.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  Issue 1: The petitioner sought the deletion of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which allowed charging excise duty based on production capacity of notified goods. They also challenged Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules and the Induction Furnance Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997. The petitioners argued that these provisions were unconstitutional and violated Articles 14, 19, and 265 of the Constitution of India. The respondents countered that the provisions were valid and had been upheld by the Supreme Court in previous judgments.
  
  Issue 2: The respondents accused the petitioners of misstating facts and concealing relevant information in their petition. It was revealed that the petitioners had filed a similar petition in the Supreme Court, which was not pressed and subsequently withdrawn without seeking permission to challenge the provisions in the High Court. The respondents argued that the petitioners suppressed crucial information about their previous petition, leading to a lack of transparency in their approach to the legal proceedings.
  
  Issue 3: The Court noted discrepancies in the statements made by the petitioners regarding the filing and withdrawal of a similar petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioners were found to have made false statements in their High Court petition about not having filed any other similar petition earlier. The Court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and disclosing all relevant facts to ensure transparency in the legal process.
  
  Issue 4: The Court applied legal principles established by previous judgments to address the petitioners' conduct of withholding material information and making inaccurate statements. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the duty of parties to provide accurate and truthful information to the court, failure of which could result in the revocation of relief sought. The Court concluded that due to the petitioners' lack of transparency and suppression of material facts, they were not entitled to any relief and ordered the dismissal of the petitions with costs.
  
  Overall, the judgment focused on the petitioners' conduct in the legal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of honesty and full disclosure of relevant information in court petitions. The Court's decision to dismiss the petitions highlighted the consequences of suppressing material facts and misrepresenting information in legal matters.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 70
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as it found no merit in the argument that the goods in question were not excisable goods. The appeal was also dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 69
  
  The Supreme Court of India set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the assessee's appeal to be heard afresh in detail by the Tribunal Bench at Bombay. The Court did not express any view on the merits of the case. The interim stay granted by the Court in 1997 will continue until the appeal is disposed of again. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 68
  
  The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal as the Revenue had accepted that electrical resistance alloy is not stainless steel. The judgment and order under appeal were set aside, and the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 67
  
  The Supreme Court of India ruled that excise duty must be paid on single ply yarn, not on doubled or multifolded yarn. Appellants can seek adjustment or refund of duty paid on double ply yarn. No refund is allowed. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 66
  
  The Supreme Court allowed civil appeals due to a difference of opinion in the Tribunal regarding natural justice principles. The matter is to go back to the assessing authority for a fresh hearing to address the issues raised. The orders under appeal were set aside, and the case was restored to the Additional Collector, Okhla. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 65
  

  Refund claims - Held that:- It is fairly not disputed by learned Counsel for the Revenue that the decision in Mafatlal Industries Limited [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] governs the appeals wherein held that Rule 9B provides for provisional assessment in situations specified in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1). The goods provisionally assessed under sub-rule (1) may be cleared for home consumption or export in the same manner as the goods which are finally assessed. Sub-rule (5) provides that 'when the duty leviable on the goods is assessed finally in accordance with the provisions of these Rules, the duty provisionally assessed shall be adjusted against the duty finally assessed, and if the duty provisionally assessed falls short of or in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to a refund, as the case may be'. Any recoveries or refunds consequent upon the adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B will not be governed by Section 11A or Section 11B, as the case may be. Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 64
  
  The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner may issue a fresh show cause notice to the assessee within eight weeks, specifying the Revenue's case on classification. The assessee will have an opportunity to respond with evidence. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 63
  
  The Supreme Court of India directed GTC Industries Ltd. to pay interest as per its order dated 4-3-1998, despite the company being before the BIFR. The company was given 12 weeks to make the payment.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 62
  
  The Supreme Court of India dismissed appeals regarding the interpretation of Sections 35E and 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Court clarified that the two sections serve different purposes and have distinct time limits. It ruled that excise duty recovery can still be pursued after the time limit under Section 11A has expired, to avoid rendering Section 35E ineffective. The appeals were dismissed with costs.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 61
  
  The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's order, citing the judgment in Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. The Court clarified that a demand notice cannot be issued for duty based on a different classification without seeking to vary the classification list. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 60
  
  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the assessee who makes agarbathis. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous judgment. The case was sent back to the Tribunal for further consideration in light of a specific judgment regarding the manufacturing process. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 59
  
  The Supreme Court of India allowed civil appeals regarding a refund claim of excise duty made beyond the permissible period, citing relevant case law. The order under appeal was set aside, and no costs were awarded. (Citation: 2002 (4) TMI 59 - SC)

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 58
  
  The Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal, set aside the penalty imposition, and quashed the demand for duty. No costs were awarded. (Citation: 2002 (4) TMI 58 - SC)

  ---

• 2002 (4) TMI 57
  
  The Supreme Court remanded a case to the Tribunal to decide whether 'trestles' were manufactured at the worksite or in the factory, based on conflicting claims by the Commissioner and the department. The judgment in appeal was set aside for further consideration by the Tribunal in accordance with the law.

  ---

1 ....2021222324252627