BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

4 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 11Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai13Nagpur4SC4Bangalore3Chennai3Kolkata3Chandigarh2Jabalpur1Delhi1Patna1VIKRAMAJIT SEN SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 11A6Penalty2Limitation/Time-bar2

RAJA MECHANICAL CO.(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Appeal is dismissed on

C.A. No.-005049-005049 - 2003Supreme Court09 Feb 2012

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

Section 11ASection 5

condonation of delay, before the adjudicating authority/assessing authority. However, the said declaration was not filed within the time prescribed under the ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short ‘the Act’) and the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority had issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.1995 to the assessee, inter alia, directing it to show cause

M/S. JAI FIBRES LTD. vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI -III

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-001950-001950 - 2006Supreme Court15 Nov 2007
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III
Section 11ASection 35E(4)Section 37

Delay condoned. 2. Interpretation of a Circular dated 24.09.1992, which was published on 15.10.1992 in the Trade Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/3137/99 (Mumbai) and E/CO/389/99 (Mumbai

M/S SARAL WIRE CRAFT PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX,

C.A. No.-005631-005632 - 2015Supreme Court20 Jul 2015
Section 11ASection 37C

Delay condoned. Leave granted. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the right of Appeal bestowed on the assessee by the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short ‘the Act’) has virtually Page 2 JUDGMENT been rendered nugatory since, successively, its Appeal has been declined consideration on merits, having instead held as time-barred. Succinctly stated, the Appellant had sought

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

C.A. No.-008529-008531 - 2001Supreme Court25 Oct 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Central Excise,Meerut
Section 35LSection 4

Delay condoned. 2. These cross appeals are filed by M/s Modipon Fibre Company and the Department under Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of turnover tax ("TOT") only