Search Results for "manufacturer"

Trending :

Search Results for "manufacturer"

114 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 114 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Central Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Award in Consignment Agent Dispute — MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. Scope of Interference with Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Limited to Grounds of Public Policy and Patent Illegality.

18 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal filed by MMTC Ltd. against the judgment of the Bombay High Court which had upheld the majority arbitral a...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Father's Appeal in Child Custody Dispute, Upholds Use of Mediator and Counsellor Reports. Reports of Child Counsellor and Mediator Regarding Child's Behavior and Attitude Are Not Confidential Under Mediation Confidentiality Rules.

15 Feb 2019

The appellant, Perry Kansagra, a Kenyan and British citizen, and the respondent, Smriti Madan Kansagra, an Indian citizen, married on 29 July 2007 in ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Rejection of CS-1 Licence for Country Spirit Manufacture. Holds That Participation in Tender Process Is Not a Pre-Condition for Grant of Licence Under Madhya Pradesh Excise Act and Rules.

15 Feb 2019

The appellant, Gwalior Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., is a manufacturer of spirits holding a D-1 licence granted in 2017. A tender notice was issued for supp...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Single L-1BF License for Imported Foreign Liquor in Haryana. Rule 24(i-eeee) of Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970 Held Ultra Vires Punjab Excise Act, 1914 as State Government Cannot Delegate Power to Determine Number of Licenses for Entire State.

12 Feb 2019

The appellant, International Spirits and Wines Association of India, challenged Rule 24(i-eeee) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970 (as amended ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Single L-1BF License for Imported Foreign Liquor in Haryana — Rule 24(i-eeee) Held Ultra Vires Punjab Excise Act, 1914. State Government's Exclusive Power Under Section 58(2)(e) to Regulate Licenses in Local Areas Cannot Be Delegated to Financial Commissioner.

12 Feb 2019

The appellant, International Spirits and Wines Association of India, challenged Rule 24(i-eeee) of the Haryana Liquor License Rules, 1970, as amended ...

9 10 11 12

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)