|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9689 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.
- 2019 (9) TMI 646
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - refund claim - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22. 8. 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as claimed refund i. e. ₹ 23, 76, 046/- is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 645
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - clandestine removal - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 50, 53, 000/- approximately is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 579
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 52,84,424/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 529
Refund of Excise Duty - Time Limitation - relevant date - pre-deposit - Whether payment towards Excise duty can be construed to be payment made towards pre-deposit? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the case of the petitioner that payment towards Excise Duty is in the form of pre-deposit is misconceived. Considering the annexures annexed with the petition i.e. Challans for deposit of Central Excise Duty in Form No.TR-6, that too, without protest is the payment towards the Excise Duty and can never be considered as pre-deposit. If any payment is made as a pre-condition for exercising the statutory right it can be termed as pre-deposit. However,it cannot be equated with voluntary deposit of Excise Duty paid even during the course of investigation and prior to show cause notice or adjudication to assert that it is pre-deposit. The payment of du....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 528
Condonation of delay of 621 days in taking out the motion - HELD THAT:- The Applicant was under the impression that the appeal would be numbered and it would come up for consideration in normal course. When the reorganization of the Appellant took place, after the introduction of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the papers regarding this appeal were transferred to Daman Commissionerate. It is at that point of time, on enquiry, the Applicant realized that the appeal was not numbered and it stood dismissed consequent to the order dated 17 March 2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master - On account of the above misunderstanding of the order dated 3 October 2016 passed by this Court, the Applicant could not take steps early to set aside the order dated 17 March 2016. We are satisfied with the reasons for the delay in filing this application - Notice of motion allowed.
- 2019 (9) TMI 477
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Condonation of delay of 1475 days in filing appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 62, 30, 807/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. In view of the said instructions dated 22.8.2019 learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the instant appeal, however the question of law raised would remain open. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 474
Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - Process amounting to manufacture - excisability - printing of Signages (Sign Boards), Printed Digital Flex, Pylon Signs, Glow Signs etc., and supplying the same to various customers, like M/s.Reliance Retail, M/s.Arvind Styles, M/s.3M India etc. - demand of excise duty - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Appeal, as we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy of the statutory appeal, provided under the law. No exceptional circumstances are found to allow such issues to be raised in Writ jurisdiction. Of course, the appellant is free to raise all the questions, including the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction, before the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide all ....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 472
Evasion of Central Excise Duty - guilty of the offence set out under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act - special and adequate reasons within the meaning of proviso to Section 9 of the Act or not - HELD THAT:- Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, sets out the offences and penalties. The respondent, in this case, had admitted and they were also found guilty of the offence set out under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act. Proviso to Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, prescribes a minimum term of six months imprisonment. Of-course, if there are special and adequate reasons, it is open to the trial Court to sentence the accused for a term of less than six months. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Department would contend that the reasons assigned by the Court below cannot be called as special and....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 423
Principles of Natural Justice - the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses - HELD THAT:- No reply statement has been filed opposing such a statement made in the counter affidavit. As such it is seen that the petitioners were granted opportunity at least on four occasions which have not been availed by the petitioners. It is also seen that the petitioners has not produced any list of witnesses whom they intend to cross examine. In these circumstances, it can be said that sufficient opportunities were extended to the petitioner, which was not availed by them, within a reasonable time. In cases where there is violation of principles of natural justice, this Court would be justified in interfering with the final orders inspite of an appeal remedy available to the petitioner - Since the respondents had granted....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 422
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Service of order - proper mode of communication - appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation - whether the Tribunal was justified in declining to condone the delay when the Excise and Customs Department had failed to establish that the Appellate order dated 08/02/2012 was tendered to the Appellant by registered post as mandated under Section 37(1)(a) of the Act of 1944? HELD THAT:- The stipulation “or by speed post with proof of delivery or by courier approved by the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963” which appears in Sub-clause (a) was inserted by Act No.17 of 2013, Section 100(i) w.e.f. 10/05/2013. Thus, before said amendment/insertion, imperative it was for the department to have sent/tendered the decision dated 06/02/....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 420
Extension of time for making pre-deposit - auction of property - recovery of amount from auction of property - HELD THAT:- As the department has been able to recover the amount of ₹ 2.61 Crore, we are of the view that the applicants may not be now asked to deposit the amount towards the pre-deposit. The interest of the revenue could be said to be protected. The applicants must get an opportunity to argue the appeal on merits rather than the appeal being dismissed on the ground of failure of pre-deposit. CESTAT is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting for the pre-deposit - appeal restored - application disposed off.
- 2019 (9) TMI 326
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22. 8. 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i. e. ₹ 55, 91, 573/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 325
Filing of appeal without the copy of the order in original - Appellant claimed that order was not served upon him - request for release of bank account from attachment - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act - the respondent submits that the petitioner is served with the order in original by speed post, however at present the acknowledgment is not traceable - HELD THAT:- We cannot set aside any order without the copy of the said order before us. In fact the Registry should not have registered the petition without the copy of the order sought to be challenged in the writ petition. Upon receipt of the certified copy the petitioner may file an appeal against the said order if so advised before the appropriate forum. The appropriate forum shall naturally consider about the claim of the petitioner that the order in original was not served upon the petitioner and thereafter shall pass the necessary orders.
- 2019 (9) TMI 281
Principles of natural justice - appellant could not get opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- There occurred denial of natural justice in affording a reasonable opportunity to the appellant in the matter of hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore we are inclined to remand the matter for a fresh hearing and disposal by the Appellate Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (9) TMI 280
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses - case of Revenue is that, Since the order was passed after 15 months from the show cause notice and the entire period of 15 months was only at the instance of the petitioner, it can only be said that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and therefore it will not amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. HELD THAT:- No reply statement has been filed opposing such a statement made in the counter affidavit. As such it is seen that the petitioner was granted opportunity at least on four occasions which have not been availed by the petitioner. It is also seen that the petitioner has not produced any list of witnesses whom they intend to cross examine. In these circumstances, it can be said that sufficient opportuni....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 177
Period of limitation for filing an appeal before Commissioner(Appeals) - failure of the Commissioner(Appeals) and CESTAT to follow the directions of the HC - demand of duty - Aluminium Dross - HELD THAT:- The ground of time bar is a technical bar to the maintainability of the appeal before the competent forum and even if beyond a period, the time bar cannot be relaxed by the Appellate Authority itself, but, when once there was an intervention by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned Single Judge of this court clearly expressed in the order that a period of approximately six years was to be excluded from the period of limitation, merely because the learned Single Judge did not direct further to decide the Appeal on merits, in our opinion, the learned CESTAT should not have dismissed the Appeal on the....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 116
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal is not maintainable before this Court, the monetary limit being below ₹ 1, 00, 00, 000/-. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 115
Admissibility of appeal - imposition of penalty on the Company as well as its Director, without complying the provision u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - HELD THAT:- Perusal of order would reflect that no discussion has been made with regard to imposition of penalty at all. The matter requires re-examination on the question whether the appellant was liable to pay the penalty or not after determining the matter under the provision of Rule 26 of the C.E. Rules, 2002 - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (9) TMI 114
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the order - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its views with regard to the applicability of the decision rendered by the the Hon’ble Apex Court to the petitioner’s case and that the Tribunal would be in its own liberty to arrive at a conclusion. The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (9) TMI 68
Imposition of penalty - Clandestine manufacture and removal - gross undervaluation of products manufactured and sold - demand based on various gross undervaluation of products manufactured and sold - retraction of statements - Whether the imposition of penalty to the tune of ₹ 20 lakhs on the appellant without any documentary evidence and based on uncorroborated oral statements was proper? HELD THAT:- The orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal would indicate that the accounts were examined, statements were recorded and there was finding that the company have resorted to unaccounted raw materials and administrative expenses. There was also evidence of clandestine removal of goods. These were all discernible from documentary evidences and the computer statements recovered on search. Being the Managing Director of the co....... + More
........
|
