Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise SCH Central Excise - SCH 2007 2007 2007 (4) 2007 (4) SCH Central Excise - 2007 (4) Central Excise - 2007 (4) TMI SCH This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - SC Orders / Highlights - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 7 of 7 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 and Decision etc.

• 2007 (4) TMI 754
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 717
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... facts, we do not wish to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.”

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 686
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the assessee would be entitled to refund, if any, in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 683
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 672
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... le article by the assessee was wrong. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.A. No. 3439-3442/2004 & C.A. No. 215/2007 In view of the decision of the first case, it is not necessary to await service in other matters. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 668
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s (a) and (b) of Notification No. 41/99-C.E. are to be read together and that the conditions are mandatory and not mere procedural. The Tribunal further held that the date of undertaking under Notification No. 41/99-C.E. is the date on which the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner receives the undertaking and not the date on which the manufacturer sends the undertaking, hence exemption under Notification ibid was held as not available for the period for which undertaking was not given.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 264
  
  Cenvat/Modvat – Revenue contended that assessee had wrongly availed the modvat credit and was liable to refund the amount – Held that:- excise duty paid and the Modvat credit availed were identical and therefore consequences of payment of excise duty after availing Modvat credit was revenue neutral - appeal is dismissed leaving the question of law open - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

1