Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1987 (2) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... : Agrawal, J.]. - M/s. Lal Chand Anand and Sons, Ghaziabad are the manufactures of excisable goods falling under Tariff Item No. 68 under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Government of India issued a notification, dated 18.6.1977 through which it exempted goods from payment of excise duty which fell under Tariff Item No. 68 up to the value of Rs. 30 lacs. The responde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner several other appeals involving the same point were also referred to the Larger Bench. The Larger Bench answered this question by its order, dated 7.6.1984. It was thereafter that the Collector, Central Excise moved an application under Section 35G(1) of the Act in the case of respondent No. 2 for making a reference. The reference application was rejected on the ground of not being mai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew and are of the opinion that the application under Section 35G(1) was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. On the facts and circumstances of the present case the said application was not maintainable. What the petitioner should have done was that after the case had been decided on merits by the Tribunal after the receipt of the question referred to, the Collector, Central Excise should have filed a....