w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Reliance Industries Ltd V/S CCE & ST, Lucknow


Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = L17110MH1973PLC019786

Company & Directors' Information:- R I L INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL1993PTC052678

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2006PLC218261

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52190MH2006PTC218260

Company & Directors' Information:- RELIANCE CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1948PTC017421

Company & Directors' Information:- K INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1946PTC000938

Company & Directors' Information:- INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00349KA1947PTC000501

Company & Directors' Information:- J INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U18101OR1960PTC000388

    E/3187/2012 (DB) (Arising out of O/A No. 315/CE/LKO/12 dated 16.07.2012 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow) and Final Order No. 70175/2018

    Decided On, 15 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench Allahabad

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ASHOK JINDAL
    By, MEMBER AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: ANIL G. SHAKKARWAR
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Vishal Agarwal and Rahul Agarwal, Advocates And For Respondents: Pradeep Kumar Dubey, Supdt. (A.R.)



Judgment Text


1. Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein claim of interest has been rejected by the authorities below.

2. The brief fact of the case are that appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) at its factory located at Barabanki. Till 25.07.1991, the appellant was operating under the set-off scheme, in terms of Notification No. 225/86 dated 03.04.1986, which provided that the duty paid on Mono Ethylene Glycol (input) would be set off against the duty payable on PSF (final product). After introduction of Modvat Scheme, the appellant had vide letter dated 19.12.1996 sought refund of the unutilized set-off duty to the tune of Rs. 80,73,405/- lying in its RG 23 Account, by way of transfer to its RG-23A (Modvat Account). The said refund was claimed by way of transfer in terms of Rule 57H(3) of the Central Excies Rules. Vide letter dated 21.06.2001 it was intimated to the appellant that transfer of credit would be considered at a later stage therefore set off amount would not be transferred to their Modvat account for utilization of payment of duty and remained lying with the department either for transfer or refund. Later on after settling the various disputes at various levels, the appellant was permitted to transfer unutilized balance in three tranches vide letters dated 09.06.2006, 21.02.2011 and 02.08.2011, which were pursuant to the disputes relating to credit availed under the set off regime being decided by either this Tribunal or the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Although transfer was allowed, but payment of interest was not given for delay in permission to transfer the credit. The appellant requested for sanction of the interest on the said unutilized credit balance for the period of delay in grant of refund by way of transfer of credit. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for rejection of their claim of interest and claim of interest was rejected on the ground that the transfer of credit under Rule 57H(3) was not an application for refund filed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act and thus no interest under section 11BB could be granted. Against the said order appellant is before us.

3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the sole ground on which claim of interest has been denied that there is no specific provision for grant of interest in respect of refund being claimed by way of transfer of credit. The appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Midland Plastics Ltd. v. Union of India : 2006 (205) ELT 12 (MP)], Ebiz.com Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE : 2017 (459) STR 389 (All) and Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI: 2015 (324) ELT 299 (Guj.)]. Therefore he prayed for impugned order be set aside and appeal be allowed with consequential relief.

4. On the other hand Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submits that the appellant was allowed transfer of credit of set off amount in their Modvat account and same has been coming out from the impugned order. Therefore no interest is payable to the appellant.

5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions.

6. We find that in this case the sole ground for denial of interest on delayed refund/transfer of credit to Modvat account is that there is no such provision under the Rules to entertain the same under section 11B of the Act. It is an admitted fact that the refund by way of transfer was claimed by the appellant in terms of Rule 57H(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1994, which reads as under:-

(3) On an application from a manufacturer who had been immediately before filing of declaration under Rule 57G availing of,-

(a) the special procedure under Rule 56A in respect of materials or component parts for use in the manufacture of finished excisable goods, or

(b) an exemption for giving credit with respect to duty paid on the materials or component parts used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods,

the Collector may permit such manufacturer to transfer the credit of duty paid on the said materials or component parts received by such manufacturer and lying unutilized immediately before obtaining the dated acknowledgement of declaration made under Rule 57G in his account in RG 23 to his account in RG 23A.

Provided that the materials and component parts and the finished excisable goods have been specified as inputs and final products respectively in the notification issued under Rule 57A.

7. Admittedly the appellant is entitled to the refund of set off by way of transfer to Modvat credit account. Thus the core issue is that whether the provisions of section 11B and 11BB OF Central Excise Act, 1944 are applicable to the proceedings of claim of refund by way of transfer under Rule 57H(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 or not. We find that similar issue came up before Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Midland Plastics Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:-

11. It is the case of the respondents that in matters pertaining to grant of allowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57 there is no provision for grant of interest under the entire Central Excise Law and the provisions of Section 11BB cannot be made applicable in such matters. Accordingly, on these counts respondents have resisted the claim made by the petitioner.

...

15. Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with regard to interest on delayed payment was inserted by Section 75 of the Finance Act of 1995 with effect from 26-5-1995 and, therefore, with effect from the date three months subsequent thereof petitioner claims interest on the basis of notification issued by the Central Govt. in accordance with the aforesaid provision. This benefit is being resisted by the respondents on the ground that in a claim for Modvat credit made under Rule 57H the provisions of Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act will not apply. This question is considered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Indo-Nippon (supra). That was a case where the assessee had made a contention that provisions of Section 11B and Section 11BB are not attracted to Modvat credit whereas it was the case of the department that the said provisions are applicable even to Modvat credit. After considering the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B in Paras 28 and 29 of the aforesaid judgment a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has held that the language of clause C to the provisions of sub-section (2) is very clear and it has been held that the claim for refund based on Modvat credit is maintainable in accordance with the procedure and limitation prescribed in sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. This judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court and the S.L.P. filed by the department being S.L.P. (Civil) No. 658/02 has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26-8-2002. From a complete reading of the aforesaid judgment it is clear that it is held in the aforesaid judgment that the provisions of Rule 57H and the notification issued thereunder enable refund under the Modvat credit scheme but even in such cases the procedure and limitation for claiming such refund would be governed by the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. That being so, the arguments advanced on behalf of the department to be contrary has to be rejected and it has to be held that with effect from the date the provisions of Section 11BB came into force petitioner was entitled to interest on the amount due in accordance with the notification issued by the department. Accordingly, with effect from 26-8-1995 till the date of settlement of the claim i.e. 28-6-2002 petitioner was entitled to interest at the rate notified by the Central Govt. in accordance with the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. To that extent relief claimed for by the petitioner has to be allowed.

8. As the Hon'ble High Court has held that the provisions of rule 57H and the Notification issued thereunder enable refund under Modvat credit scheme, but even in such cases the transfer of limitation for claiming such refund would be covered by the provisions of section 11B of the Act, therefore we hold that provisions of section 11B of the Central Excise Act are applicable to the facts of this case. Further we find that in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Gujarat High Court further observed as under:-

1.1 There was delay in allowing the transfer of respective Modvat/Cenvat credit from the date of application till the date for grant of such Modvat/Cenvat credit.

1.2 The petitioner was aggrieved by order dated 11-4-2005 passed by the Commissioner, whereby the claim of the petitioner, for interest on the ground that there was no provision empowering the department to pay interest on the Modvat/Cenvat claim withheld by the Department's inaction, was rejected.

5.3 This Court is of the considered opinion that the entire approach is wholly erroneous. Had the amount been paid as the Central Excise duty or Customs duty or admissible drawback amount, the department would have been willing to consider the claim for interest. But since the amount was withheld wholly without any justification, their stand is that no interest can be paid. The Court finds that on merger, the unutilized credit lying with the amalgamating company gets transferred to the amalgamated company automatically by virtue of Rules 57F(20) and 57S(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Therefore, it is not a case where the petitioner is to be granted refund by virtue of the order of an appellate authority but it is a case where an amount to which the petitioner was rightfully entitled under the provisions of law was retained without any rationale or reasoning acceptable in law. This Court is thus of the opinion that withholding the transfer of credit on merger was wholly unauthorized and unjustified because the same was done without any lawful consideration and in clear violation of the legal provisions. Since there was a failure on the part of the department in not initiating any proceedings within time limit, the amount to which the petitioner was rightfully entitled was denied to him. The only inescapable conclusion that we can reach is that the respondents had no reason to deny the transfer of the unutilized credit to the petitioner on merger. They had no authority to withhold such amount in law. In that view of the matter, it would be highly unjust to permit the respondents to hold on to the petitioner's money for nearly 5 years without any interest at all as it would amount to Revenue taking advantage of its own wrong of withholding the permission for transfer of credit.

5.4 The contention to the effect that no interest is payable because there is no provision of interest under the scheme of the Act is also thoroughly misconceived and misplaced. When the Department acts illegally and not as per the scheme of the Act, the interest on such refund can never be provided for under the Scheme of the Act. If the authorities act as per the law, the question of granting interest on refund can be appreciated and considered as per the scheme of the Act.

9. The said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in th

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

e case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. has been entertained by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ebiz.com Pvt. Ltd. (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. held that any amount received by the Revenue as deposit or pre-deposit i.e. unauthorizedly or under mistaken notion, etc., cannot be retained by Revenue since it has no authority in law to retain such amount and it must be refunded with interest. Therefore, following the precedent decisions of the Hon'ble High Court as discussed hereinabove we hold that refund of set off was not given by way of credit in the Modvat account and delay has been occurred on account of the Revenue. In that circumstances for intervening period, the appellant is entitled to claim interest from the date of filing of refund of set off by way of credit to the Modvat scheme after three years from the date of filing claim of refund of set off by way of transfer to Modvat Credit Scheme under RG-23A till its realisation. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court)
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-07-2020 NSL Sugars Limited, Rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Liason) H.V. Amarnath Versus State of Karnataka, Rep. by its Secretary (Sugar) Commerce & Industries Department, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
23-07-2020 Aqua Pump Industries, Rep by its Managing Partner Ramaswamy Kumaravelu & Another Versus N. Raju, Trading as S.M.Agriculture & Electronics, Bangalore High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-07-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus Sujoy Chatterjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-07-2020 N.M. Chandrashekar Versus The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
14-07-2020 M/s. Terracon Projects, Represented by its Proprietor S.V. Babu Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 M/s. Durga Fabrication Works, Represented by its Proprietor, Prakash Ramu Rathod Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Department of Industries & Commerce, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Girijabai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-06-2020 Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another Versus Sajal Kumar Banerjee National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-06-2020 M/s. Virgo Industries (Engineers) Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director Reethamma Joseph & Another Versus M/s. Venturetech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Director N. Mal Reddy High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-06-2020 M/s. Integrated Finance Company Limited rep. by its Legal Officer and duly constituted Attorney A. Hema Jothi Versus Garware Marine Industries Limited Registered Office at Chander Mukhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Prakash Industries Limited. Versus Bengal Energy Limited. & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-06-2020 Khaleed Pasha & Others Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Department of Commerce & Industries (MSME, Mines & Textile), Bangalore & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-05-2020 Guru Nanak Industries, Faridabad & Another Versus Amar Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. Supreme Court of India
26-05-2020 Tips Industries Ltd. Versus Entertainment Network (Kindia) Ltd. & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-05-2020 M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Nilesh Mahendra Kumar Gandhi & Another Versus The Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (Check of Accounts) & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
12-05-2020 Spentex Industries Ltd Versus Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
27-04-2020 Bihar State Electricity Board & Others Versus M/s. Iceberg Industries Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 M/s. CJP Industries, Represented by its Managing Partner S. Julius Versus Amitha Bishnoi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. & Others Versus M/s. Sona Promoters Pvt. Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
17-03-2020 A Marine Industries Munambam, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Proprietor, P.T. Francis & Others Versus UCO Bank, Represented by The Chief Manager, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 S. Vaikundarajan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Industries (MMD.2) Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Peps Industries Private Limited Versus Kurlon Limited High Court of Delhi
12-03-2020 Sai Electromech Industries, A Sole Proprietary Concern rep.by Its Proprietor Umangkumar Joshi Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep.by its Authorised Signatory S. Mahadevan High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Anushree Malviya Versus Reliance Digital Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
11-03-2020 Agrocel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 M/s. Connectwell Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Ministry of Finance & Others Supreme Court of India
06-03-2020 Ballarpur Industries Limited & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Forests, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 Electrosteel Steels Limited, Bokaro & Others Versus The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Industries, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
04-03-2020 M/s. Ramco Industries Ltd., Rajapalaym Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-03-2020 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Salem Versus Parameshwari & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-02-2020 Bank of India V/S M/s. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd Supreme Court of India
28-02-2020 Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd Versus Prime Cable Network & Another High Court of Delhi
28-02-2020 Trans Asian Industries Exposition Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2020 Kamal Encon Industries Limited Through its Authorized Representative Versus Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary World Trade Centre, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
25-02-2020 Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. Versus Additional Commissioner of Labour-cum-Specified Authority & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 S. Suresh Versus The Management Exide Industries Ltd., Madurai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-02-2020 Panch Tatva Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Versus GPT Steel Industries Ltd. (Through Resolution Professional) & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-02-2020 M/s Century Rayon (A division of Century Textile & Industries Ltd.), Maharashtra V/S Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its, Chief Engineer (Commercial), Maharashtra And Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
20-02-2020 Asian Food Industries Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-02-2020 The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Devikamma @ Devakemma & Others High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench OF Kalaburagi
18-02-2020 ITC Limited, Chennai, Rep. by its Constituted Attorney, V.M. Rajasekharan Versus Shree Devi Match Industries, Gudiyattam & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2020 M/s. Reliance General Insurance Company Versus Rakesh Sharma & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
18-02-2020 Clay Craft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director, Rajasthan & Others Versus Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (Institution of Rajasthan Government) Through Managing Director, Ugyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-02-2020 Reliance Industries Ltd. Versus Gail (India) Ltd. High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 The Superintending Engineer, General Construction, TANTRANSCO Ltd., Tatabad, Coimbatore & Another Versus Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and Director of Industries and Commerce, Represented by its Chairman, Guindy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 M/s. Tanfac Industries Limited, Rep. by its Secretary G. Balasubramanian Versus M/s. Orichem Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-02-2020 M/s. S.K.J. Coke Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Coal India Ltd. & Others Supreme Court of India
07-02-2020 Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited V/S Laxmi Balaji Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
06-02-2020 HDFC Bank Ltd. V/S JNK Electrical Industries Private Limited and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
06-02-2020 K. Arumugham, Prop. Seetha Industries, Arakandanalu, Villupuram V/S The Secretary to Government, Department of Commercial Taxes & Religious Endowments, Chennai And Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-02-2020 Andhra Bank V/S Suguna Industries Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
05-02-2020 Sheo Shakti Cement Industries, Hazaribagh Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
05-02-2020 D. Vasantha Versus The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary Commerce & Industries Department (MSME & Mines), Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 B.H. Srinivasa Murthy Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries, Bengaluru & Others High Court of Karnataka
05-02-2020 P. Krishnan Versus The Deputy Director of Industries and Commerce (Industrial Co-operatives)/(District Registrar of Industrial Co-op), Guindy, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 Reliance generators Pvt Ltd, Rep by its Managing Director, Chennai Versus Assistant Commissioner, Vadapalani II Assessment Circle, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 M/s. Reliance Construction Co., Mumbai & Others Versus Priti O. Ganvir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 M/s. K.T.V. Health Food Private Limited Versus The Principal Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu Industries Department Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-02-2020 Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Another Versus Punjab National Bank & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
01-02-2020 Ishwar Oil Industries and Others. V/S The Authorized Officer, Dena Bank and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax V/S Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Supreme Court of India
29-01-2020 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by Manager Legal Versus A.V. Radha & Others High Court of Karnataka
29-01-2020 Vimal Kumar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary/Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Through its Authorised Signatory, New Delhi Versus M/s. Durga Bricks Industries, West Bengal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-01-2020 Century Rayon (A Division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited), Maharashtra Versus The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Through its Secretary, Mumbai & Others Appellate Tribunal for Electricity Appellate Jurisdiction
28-01-2020 M/s. Elgi Electric & Industries Limited, Rep. by General Manager, Coimbatore Versus The Assistant Commissioner (CT) (FAC), Trichy Road Assessment Circle, Coimbatore High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Vanessa Crasto Versus Central Public Information Officer Central Cottage Industries Corporation of India Ltd. Central Information Commission
27-01-2020 The Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., (SIPCOT), Egmore, Chennai Versus The Special Tahsildar, SIPCOT Unit Sriprumbudur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 Versus Vilson Particle Board Industries Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-01-2020 Morgan Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. Versus Resolution Professional of Videocon Industries Ltd. & Another National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
21-01-2020 M/s. Slar Machines & Methods, Rep. by its Partner, V. Saravanabhavan Versus The Branch Manager, National Small Industries Corporation Limited, Hosur & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-01-2020 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd. & Another Versus PEC Limited High Court of Delhi
14-01-2020 M/s. Vijeta Projects & Industries Limited Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
10-01-2020 Nandkishore Shravan Ahirrao Versus Kosan Industries (P)Ltd. Supreme Court of India
10-01-2020 M/s. Singapore Reality Private Limited, Represented by its Director having office at T. Nagar, Chennai also at Siruseri Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Viju M. Ittoop Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Industries Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
09-01-2020 Chowgule Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Krishna Shrikant Kumbhar & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
07-01-2020 Union of India Versus Reliance Communication Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
07-01-2020 M/s. Maa Bhadrakali Coke Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Dhanbad Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others High Court of Jharkhand
06-01-2020 M/s. Refex Industries Limited, Kanchipuram District & Others V/S The Assistant Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 P. Dhanalakshmi & Another Versus The Secretary to Government, Industries Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 Bengal Hammer Industries P. Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
02-01-2020 Allahabad Bank V/S Dobhi Agro Industries and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Patna
02-01-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Zuari Industries Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
02-01-2020 Kaushal Ramesh Mehta Versus Metallica Industries Ltd. & Others National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
02-01-2020 Himadri Speciality Chemicals and Industries Limited V/S Principal Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Kolkata Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
27-12-2019 Shah Metal Industries Versus G.L. Rexroth Industries Ltd. High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
24-12-2019 Shyam Steel Industries Limited Versus Shyam Sel & Power Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
23-12-2019 Jindal Stainless Limited Versus Moorgate Industries India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
20-12-2019 Manjeet Kapoor Proprietor M/s. Manjeet Plastic Industries, New Delhi Versus Tamil Nadu Textbook and Educational Services Corp. Chennai, Tamil Nadu High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-12-2019 M/s. Yogiraj Powertech Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Industries, Energy & Labour Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Rama Krishna & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary Industries and Commerce Mines Department A P Secretariat Velagapudi Guntur District A.P. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
18-12-2019 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited & Others Versus Koushalya Ananta Chaudhari & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-12-2019 Lokhandwala Construction Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Bala K. Ayer National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-12-2019 Sai Electromech Industries Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Gujarat, India Versus Sicagen India Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras