Search Results for "Section 11D"

18 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 18 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Clarifies SEBI's Jurisdiction in Investor Compensation Claims Under Securities Law. SEBI Lacks Power to Award Direct Compensation but Can Order Disgorgement of Ill-Gotten Gains for Restitution Under Sections 11 and 11B of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992.

The dispute originated in 2005 when the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued a show-cause notice to M/s. Vital Communications Limited ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in CENVAT Credit Dispute on Exempted Goods. CENVAT Credit on Engraved Printing Cylinders Allowed Where Supplier's Duty Payment Not Challenged by Jurisdictional Officer.

The Appellant-Revenue filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the order dated 20 October 2023 of the Customs, Excise...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows Bank's Appeal Against Confiscation Orders Under Central Excise Act and SARFAESI Act. Commissioner's Use of Omitted Rule 173Q(2) Invalid and SARFAESI Act Grants Priority to Secured Creditors Over Excise Dues.

The appeal arose from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing a writ petition filed by Punjab National Bank. The bank had extended credit fa...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Show Cause Notice in CENVAT Credit Case Due to Violation of Natural Justice. Non-supply of documents and denial of cross-examination vitiated the notice under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, Supermax Personal Care Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in manufacturing excisable goods such as safety razors, blades, and shaving system...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Case on Interest Liability for Provisional Assessment. Section 11DD of Central Excise Act, 1944 not applicable to differential duty determined on finalization of provisional assessment under Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

The appellant, Godrej Industries Limited, was engaged in the manufacture of Liquid Hair Dye during the period from September 1982 to March 1985. The d...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Land Dispute — No Interference Under Article 227 as Findings of Fact Are Not Perverse. The court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The case involves a writ petition filed by the petitioners (heirs of the original plaintiff) challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts i...