Search Results for "section 11B"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Suit — Concurrent Findi...
High Court of Bombay at Bombay Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Acc...
Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice Under Section 148 of Income Tax Ac...
High Court of Karnataka Allows EPF Organisation's Writ Petition for Priority Pay...

Search Results for "section 11B"

71 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 71 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Manufacturer's Appeal in Rebate Claim Case Due to Limitation Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Rebate of duty on exports is governed by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, as 'refund' includes 'rebate' under Explanation (A) to that section.

29 Nov 2022

The appellant, Sansera Engineering Limited, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported goods between August 2015 and October 2015 and filed claims fo...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Refund Case. Principles of Unjust Enrichment Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 Not Applicable to Refund Arising on Finalisation of Provisional Assessment.

20 Dec 2005

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II appealed against the order of the appellate authorities below which allowed the refund claim of M/s. Sta...

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 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 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 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.

7 Apr 2025

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 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Rebate Claim as Time-Barred Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act — Export Date Determines Limitation Period, Filing of ARE-1 Not a Substitute for Rebate Claim.

29 Mar 2012

The petitioner, Everest Flavours Ltd., exported a consignment of 360 drums containing Menthol Crystals to Bangkok on 12 February 2006. The shipping bi...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Winding Up of Mutual Fund Schemes and Interprets SEBI Regulations. The Court examined the interrelation and constitutional validity of Regulations 39 to 42 with Regulation 18(15)(c) of the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996, while deferring final adjudication pending statutory proceedings under the SEBI Act, 1992.

14 Jul 2021

The Supreme Court of India addressed civil appeals concerning the interpretation and application of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual...

1 2 3

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