Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 37 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1496 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... ases would, therefore, suggest that the products in question were found to be and rightly held to be covered under Chapter 30 and not Chapter 33. We must immediately point out that the expert opinion was pressed into service before the Tribunal of Dr. V.N. Pandey who had in detail analysed all these products and noted that the products contained the elements having ayurvedic medicinal value. It was also noted rightly by the Tribunal that all these products were produced under the drugs licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.” 7. Products in question have been held to be “Ayurvedic medicines” covered under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and not the “cosmetics and toilet preparations” as alleged by the petitioner. Thus, whole substratum of the complaint goes. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the ACMM. 8. For the foregoing reasons, this Revision Petition is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1345 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ..... r the appellant makes a statement at the Bar that the issue was specifically raised. If that is so, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to deal with the same in the first instance. In these circumstances, we permit the appellant to move an application under the appropriate provisions of law seeking review of the order on the aforesaid term. While granting the aforesaid liberty, this appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1216 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Compounding of offence under Section 9 - Whether bail should be granted or not – Search conducted on the factory premises and godown of the petitioner - Found three pouch packing machines and one Tobacco Mixture machine ,finished goods, raw Tobacco, packing materials - These machines were found not to have been declared by the firm - Officer seized all these machines and materials - Petitioner was found to have evaded the excise duty. It is true that the alleged offence is non-cognizable and also compoundable as envisaged by Section 9A of the Act of 1944, but the amount of excise duty, the petitioner is found to have evaded, is undoubtedly large and shocking - It amounts to Rs. 338.25 lac - Therefore the act of the petitioner may be termed as ‘Royal Thievery’ which is opposed to both democracy and society order. Held that:- Since, accused....... + More
- 2011 (1) TMI 1138 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Shortage of Modvat inputs and capital goods in the factory premises - officers of the assessee admitted the shortage in their statement recorded during the course of search, the assessee produced several documents during the course of assessment proceedings to show that there was no shortage - adjudicating authority declined to look into these documents on the ground that they were produced as an afterthought and confirmed the demand – Held that:- matter is restored to the file of the adjudicating authority, appeal is accordingly disposed off
- 2011 (1) TMI 1137 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Refund – unjust enrichment – Held that:- Tribunal has also observed that factual data in support of the submissions raised for refund has not been produced. The Tribunal has also observed that the record could not disclose that as to what was the portion of price related to the gallery along with the duty liability and the detail break-up of the price charged for the goods prior to and after removal of gallery, appellant has failed to establish that they had not passed on duty burden upon the consumers, hence, refund would have amounted to unjust enrichment, no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed
- 2011 (1) TMI 1130 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Refund - claim rejected on the ground that appellant has failed to establish that they has not passed on duty burden upon the consumers - factual data in support of the submissions raised for refund has not been produced - record could not disclose that as to what was the portion of price related to the gallery along with the duty liability and the detail break up of the price charged for the goods prior to and after removal of gallery - burden in that regard was upon the appellants which the appellants have failed to discharge, appellant has failed to establish that they has not passed on duty burden upon the consumers, hence refund would have amounted to unjust enrichment, Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed
- 2011 (1) TMI 1117 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery - Demand for payment of Service Tax with penalty, under Ext.P1 order - appeal as well as the application for dispensation filed in both these cases are pending consideration and disposal before the 1st respondent - Grievance of the petitioner is that in the meanwhile coercive steps of recovery is being threatened for realising amounts covered under Ext.P1. Therefore the petitioner seeks interference of this Court to restrain the recovery steps till the disposal of the appeals - Held that:- Writ petitions are disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 applications in both these cases, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, recovery of amounts covered under Ext.P1 order in both these cases shall be kept in abeyance.
- 2011 (1) TMI 1078 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Writ - learned senior counsel restricted his relief for supply of documents which are going to be pressed into service or relied upon by the Adjudicating Officer during adjudication - Held that:- When we say relied upon or pressed into service, it would convey that any document which has been directly or indirectly pressed into service by the Adjudicator - Be it clarified and elaborated if in course of adjudication a document as indicated hereinbefore is pressed into service and relied upon directly or indirectly, it would be open to the petitioner to file an application for getting a copy of the same. In case an application is filed, as acceded to by Mr. Mukesh Anand, the Adjudicator shall dwell upon the same - writ petition stands disposed of
- 2011 (1) TMI 1077 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit on capital goods - Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the payment of duty on the basis of transaction value is not correct and the assessee was justified in availing CENVAT credit - Held that:- As the determination of the said question is excluded under Section 35(G) of the Act, the revenue has to prefer an appeal to the Apex Court under section 35(L) - Appeal is rejected
- 2011 (1) TMI 1076 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund - show cause notice was issued under Section 11-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - undue enrichment - Held that:- As decided in cases of Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [1998 (5) TMI 157 - CEGAT, MADRAS] & CCE, Indore Versus MEDI CAPS LTD. [2001 (12) TMI 103 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the refund claims under Rule 173-L and the ratio of the said decisions is squarely applicable to the instant case - In view of the findings recorded and TRIVENI CHEMICALS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2006 (12) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] it has to be held that the matter which stand concluded, finally between the parties cannot be reopened by invoking Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Decided in favor of the assessee
- 2011 (1) TMI 1073 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether the goods cleared by the appellant a 100% EOU to DTA were excisable or not? - fresh mushrooms - Tribunal directing the appellant to pre- deposit the amount of Rs. 1.25 crores - Held that:- Prior to 28-2-2005 as also subsequent to 28-2-2005 fresh mushrooms were excisable but were subjected to ‘Nil’ rate of duty - the demands raised herein pertains to the period from December, 2006 to June, 2008 when the orders passed in the appellant’s own case were in operation. As per those orders, the appellant was not liable to duty on clearances to DTA. In these circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of full waiver of pre-deposit.
- 2011 (1) TMI 924 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal is legally correct in restoring the appeal of the respondent to its original number beyond six months - contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal could not have restored the appeal after expiry of six month from the date of dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. In the impugned order no such objection appears to have been raised on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal in absence of which the plea cannot be raised for the first time before this Court, appellant is unable to give the date on which the application was filed and the date on which the fact of dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution came to the notice of the assessee. Since huge amount was involved, the Tribunal having been satisfied about the bona fides for the non-appearance of the assessee, there is no ground to interfere. No substantial question of law arises, the appeal is dismissed.
- 2011 (1) TMI 782 - DELHI HIGH COURT
SSI Exemption - Brand name - The respondent No. 1 M/s. Minimax Industries is a partnership firm of which respondent No. 2 is one of the partners - partnership firm and MEI are being run by the family members - Two brothers are partners in the said partnership firm while the MEI is the sole proprietorship concern of third brother. Both of them have been using the mark “Minimax” for the last number of years, though, the use by MEI may be prior in point of time. However, even that is the history. Initially, all the three brothers were doing the business together, however, later on these two brothers of partnership firm started separate business in the same line using same name i.e. “Minimax”. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the partnership firm started using the name “Minimax” which belonged to MEI - Admittedly, MEI has not go....... + More
- 2011 (1) TMI 746 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty - Evasion of duty - it is clear from Section 11A after a notice is issued under Section 11AC, the assessee has a right to make a representation contesting the claim - Section 11A(C) makes it clear that the liability to pay the penalty arises on the person who is liable to pay duty as determined under sub-Section 2 of Section 11A - Held that: the determination of liability to pay duty is a condition precedent for imposing penalty - the entire duty and interest was paid voluntarily on being pointed out. It held that no case for imposing the penalty is made out - Decided in favor of the assessee
- 2011 (1) TMI 739 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - The dispute in the present case, is, regarding the date of communication of the order of BIFR dated 5-12-2006 to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik. Notarized copy of the order of the BIFR dated 5-12-2006 was served on the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik on 13-12-2006 - There is no dispute that the Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik had received notarized copy of the order of BIFR on 13-12-2006, and authenticated copy of the order of BIFR on 2-1-2007 - receiving notarized copy of the order on 13-12-2006 and authenticated copy of 2-1-2007 loses significance once 12-12-2006 is considered to be the relevant date for computing the period of limitation for filing the appeal - in the facts of the present case, though the inaccurate statement contained in the application seeking condonation of delay does....... + More
- 2011 (1) TMI 725 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Demand - legality of levy of Central Excise Duty - “Galleries” attached with the “Hot Air Stenter” under the rules known as Hot Air Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 - Rule 3(1) of the Rules of 1998 - notice is only a demand notice for recovery of the amount mentioned as well as notice to show cause why said amount cannot be recovered during pendency of writ petition - Since in the facts of this case, demand-cum-show cause notice dated 3-11-2000 was not the initiation of any new proceedings nor the proceedings wherein there could have been any challenge to the order dated 5-10-1999 culmination to which could have resulted into merger of order dated 5-10-1999 in the proceedings initiated by demand-cum-show cause notice dated 3-11-2000 It is settled law that in execution proceedings, the executing cour....... + More
- 2011 (1) TMI 533 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reversal of Cenvat credit - Rule 6(2) and 6(3) - The assessing officer in the course of assessment held that, assessee has reversed and amount of Rs. 72,699/- being the credit of duty paid on the inputs used for manufacture of DM water which is in contravention of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004 - it is a clear case of ascertaining the liability of the assessee which falls within the term of determination of rate of duty payable by the assessee - The appeal is rejected as not maintainable with liberty to the appellant to approach the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Act
- 2011 (1) TMI 511 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Substantial question of law - Rate of duty of excise - whether the assessee is entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of Sweetmeats manufactured by them - the question involved in this appeal relates to the rate of duty of excise - It is to be decided by the Apex Court and not by this court - Hence, the appeal is not maintainable - Liberty is reserved to the appellant to approach the Apex Court u/s 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Accordingly, appeal is dismissed
- 2011 (1) TMI 491 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cenvet credit - Capital goods used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods - Capital goods, in question, had been received during January, 2005 to March, 2005 and at that time the goods manufactured by using those capital goods- cotton yarn had been cleared by availing full duty exemption under notification No. 30/2004-C.E. However, from June, 2005 onward, the appellants started available benefit of notification No. 29/04-C.E. in respect of their clearance for export where there is optional rate of duty of 4% and there is no dispute about the fact that notification No. 29/04-C.E. and 30/04-C.E. were being available during the same period simultaneously. In view of this position, it cannot be said that the capital goods, in question, had been used exclusively for the manufacture of fully exempted finished products.- Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2011 (1) TMI 388 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rebate of duty - Export - Readymade garments - the Assistant Commissioner has rightly allowed the claim of the petitioner and ordered for refund/return of the duty paid as rebate - Only on technical ground the revisional authority having entertain the appeal, deprived the benefit extended to the petitioner as per Rule 18, under Rule 19 of the Rules, which is erroneous - Matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner for Excise to consider the incidental articles used like pins, hangars and elastics would form independent material over which duty has to be levied or it is incidental and it does carry any rebate, and pass appropriate orders according to law, taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the petitioner.