Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd.

Central Board of Direct Taxes vs. Smt Anuradha Goyal

35. In view of the above, we pass the following:

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,H.P.SANDESH

…erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’ 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389] this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal 26 and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not sel…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd

…Page 14 JUDGMENT With this background in mind, we reproduce the following relevant portions from the opinion of B.P. Jeeven Reddy, J.: “57. The first decision of this Court to consider the amended Section 11-B is in Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd (1992) 4 SCC 389 The validity of the 1991 (Amendment) Act was, however, neither raised nor considered by the court. The impugned orders of the High Court, made before the coming into force of the 1991 (Amendment) Act, directing refund of the excess duty collected to the manufacturers, this Court held, would defeat the provisions of amended Section 1…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli vs. M/S. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd

…Page 14 JUDGMENT With this background in mind, we reproduce the following relevant portions from the opinion of B.P. Jeeven Reddy, J.: “57. The first decision of this Court to consider the amended Section 11-B is in Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd (1992) 4 SCC 389 The validity of the 1991 (Amendment) Act was, however, neither raised nor considered by the court. The impugned orders of the High Court, made before the coming into force of the 1991 (Amendment) Act, directing refund of the excess duty collected to the manufacturers, this Court held, would defeat the provisions of amended Section 1…

M/S.Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise &Customs

…ect from November 17, 1980. It provided for refund of duties in certain cases of excess payment. The section was further amended by the Amendment Act of 1991 (Act 14 of 1991) with effect from September 19, 1991. In Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd., [1992] 4 SCC 389 and in Union of India v. I.T.C. Ltd., [1993] Supp 4 SCC 326, this Court held that so long as the refund proceedings are pending and not finalized, the amended provisions get attracted and may disentitle the manufacturer from claiming any refund contrary to the amended provisions. To put it differently, the provisions of Section 11B as amended by th…