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 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-- 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 - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 9990 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.

• 2020 (11) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  CENVAT Credit - input service - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to the banks for insuring the deposits of the public - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, BANK OF BARODA (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DENA BANK) , BANK OF BARODA, UNION BANK OF INDIA, STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CGST & CX, PUNE-II, COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I AND IV, MUMBAI, COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2020 (10) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that All the appeals are remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the decision rendered by the larger bench. Appeal is remanded back to the CESTAT for fresh decision in conformity with the decision rendered by the Larger Bench - appeal allowed.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 842 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Validity of delayed adjudication of SCN - Inordinate delay of 13 years in adjudication of SCN - whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delayed adjudication of the show-cause notices would be just, proper and legal? - HELD THAT:- This Court held that a show-cause notice issued a decade back should not be allowed to be adjudicated upon by the revenue merely because there is no period of limitation prescribed in the statute to complete such proceedings. Larger public interest requires that revenue should adjudicate the show-cause notice expeditiously and within a reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case but certainly a period of 13 years cannot be termed as a reasonable period. Secondly, regarding keeping the show-cause notice in the dormant list or th....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 840 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of amount paid as supervision charges - Interest for the amount paid as supervision charges - Board’s circular dated 23.04.2003 - HELD THAT:- It was observed by the board that even though the circular dated 01.01.2002 does not envisage any physical supervision of such storage premises /godown by the Central Excise, the field formations are still collecting merchant overtime charges / charges on cost recovery basis as per earlier concept of physical supervision of godowns / storage places in terms of Board’s Circular dated 14.04.1986. Therefore, the board’s circular dated 01.01.2002 and the earlier instructions of the State have stood modified to the said extent. Thus, the over-time supervision charges could not have been charged by the respondents. Therefore, the appellant was entitled for refund of the over-time ....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 665 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - Misdeclaration in SVLDRS-1 Form - rejection of benefit under the scheme on the ground that the amount of penalty had not been stated in the SVLDRS-1 form which makes it an incorrect declaration - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether an inadvertent mistake as regards the penalty imposed being not correctly stated in the SVLDRS-1 form, it has been decided by this Court in its judgment [2020 (6) TMI 38 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] where it was held that This writ petition also stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent authorities for correction to be made in the information provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the penalty imposed and upon such application being made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon - Petition disposed off.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 352 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Refund of Excise Duty - allegation that the incidence of duty not passed on to the buyer - Revenue submitted that not only the show cause notice clearly refuted the claim of the Assessee to claim such refund, inter alia on the grounds of 12B Presumption, but also on the ground that the Appellant/ Assessee was not entitled to any refund of such Excise Duty - HELD THAT:- The scheme of the Act contained in Section 11B of the Act read with other relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act as it then prevailed before the introduction of GST regime with effect from 1 July 2017, with regard to refunds is very clear viz., that it is only the person who has borne the incidence of Excise Duty, which was not leviable in law is entitled to claim refund of the same, subject to his locus standi and the limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the Act........ + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 283 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Demand of central excise arrears - Purchase of property in a public auction - whether there was attachment of liabilities and the same was passed along with the property or not? - When the question of recovery comes, there shall be a liability to pay the sum? HELD THAT:- The respondents 1 to 3 have not exercised the powers conferred under them and seized or attached the goods for which, they have granted exemption of duty. Once there is no charge over the plant or machinery, or other properties, the respondents 1 to 3 will fall under the unsecured creditors and they cannot prevail over the rights of the secured creditor - the transaction between the assesses or licensee and authorities is personal between them. It will not continue unless and otherwise there is a specific condition attached to the same. The auction purchasers cannot be he....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 239 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  
  Clandestine Manufacture and removal - Pan Masala and scented zarda - Release of applicant on Bail - benefit of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The applicant evaded the excise duty by procuring the raw material and also not accounting the clandestine and surreptitious production in the statutory books. The clandestinely manufactured goods were supplied in the market without cover of lawful documents.The applicant is the master mind and beneficiary of entire scheme of duty evasion . The applicant had knowingly and willingly made distance in order to create a veil and to escape legal liabilities cast upon him. According to section 9AA of Central Excise Act, every person who at the time, the offence was committed was in charge shall be severally and jointly liable for being prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. There is nothing in the ....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Amount of tax dues - Substitution of estimated amount payable as mentioned in forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 with the tax dues less tax relief amounts - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - whether the petitioners could be prejudiced or put in a worse off condition firstly by filing appeal before the CESTAT and secondly by filing declarations under the scheme? HELD THAT:- We may refer to the maxim reformatio in peius. It is a latin phrase meaning a change towards the worse i.e., a change for the worse. As a legal expression it means that a lower court judgment is amended by a higher court into a worse one for those appealing it. In many jurisdictions, this practice is forbidden ensuring that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. When the above phrase is prefixed by the words &l....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Restoration/return of the Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT:- The applicant had submitted a bank guarantee of State Bank of India bearing No.0999514BG0001982 dated 3/12/2014 which was subsequently amended on 5/10/2017 extending validity period upto 30/11/2022 - In the meanwhile, Central Government introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019. In order to avail the benefits under the aforesaid scheme, petitioner sought leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. By order dated 12/12/2019, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 8922 of 2014 as withdrawn. Writ Petition No. 8922 of 2014 be restored for the limited purpose of passing an order directing the Registry of this Hon’ble Court to return the Bank Guarantee No. 0999514BG0001982 dated 03.12.2014 (as amended by amendment dated 05.10.2017).

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 958 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
  
  Demand of Interest over differential duty or unpaid service tax - Direction to deposit the arrears of interest on the enhanced rate of washed coking coal dispatched to the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in terms of long terms agreement between the SAIL and this petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for the period from April 2011 to March, 2012 - Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- By virtue of this judgment in the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] the issue now stands settled that the assessee is liable to pay interest upon the differential duty and / or the unpaid service tax detected by the Revenue. Petition dismissed.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 635 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
  
  Direction to the opposite party to communicate/provide/supply a copy of the order within a stipulated time - HELD THAT:- Since the dispute pertains to classification of the intermediary parts of hoists/gates of River barrages, radial gates, Penstock pipes, Embedded parts, Hoists and Hoist Supporting structures, which will have recurring effect on the petitioner, we deem it appropriate to allow the writ petition with a direction to the opposite party to provide a fresh certified copy of the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Commissioner of (Appeals) to the petitioner, within a period of fifteen days hence, with liberty to the petitioner to now file their appeal against the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order dated 21.12.2017 before Central Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata. Petition allowed.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  CENVAT Credit - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation for insuring the deposits of the customers - period after 01.04.2012 - HELD THAT:- The service provided by the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation to the banks for insuring the deposits of the public with the banks has been considered by the banks to be an input service and CENVAT credit for service tax paid by the banks for this service has been availed of by the banks for rendering output service. The issue involved is whether the banks can avail credit of this service tax paid by the banks for the service provided by the Deposit Insurance Corporation. The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside and quashed - Appeal allowed.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 214 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  
  Recovery of erroneous refund - Refund of the education cess & secondary and higher education cess - HELD THAT:- The education cess & secondary and higher education cess were required to have been calculated on the basis of the excise duty payable. In the circumstance, a question had arisen as to whether in view of the exemption granted to the excise duty the petitioner would also be entitled to an exemption to the payment of education cess & secondary and higher education cess. The said question was decided by the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in SRD Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein in paragraph 27 of the said judgment it was held that the appellants therein were entitled to refund of education cess and higher education cess which was paid along ....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 213 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  
  Rejection of SVLDRS-1 Form submitted by the petitioner on 29.12.2019 by making a Remark of rejection thereon - HELD THAT:- This writ petition stands disposed of by requiring the petitioner to submit an application before the respondent authorities for the correction to be made in the information provided in the Form SVLDRS-1 as regards the disclosure of the dues from them and upon such application being made, the respondent authorities would pass a reasoned speaking order thereon. The requirement of submitting application be made within a period of 15 days from obtaining the certified copy of the order and upon receipt of the application, the respondent authorities shall pass an order on the same within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the application. The order dated 29.12.2019 passed by Designated Committee (Respon....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 211 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  
  Dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue - Doctrine of Merger - Exemption from Customs Duty - benefit of N/N. 125/84-C.E. - exemption from payment of duty against the sales effected by them against the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) against foreign exchange - HELD THAT:- The writ petitions are on a very narrow campus as to the effect of the dismissal of the appeal by the Revenue. The Tribunal, in the petitioner’s case reported in JUMBO BAG LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [2005 (3) TMI 188 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], had held that the supplies made are not covered by Notification No.2/95 at all and the Commissioner was in error in invoking Notification No.2/95, for the purpose of demanding excise duty. The Revenue’s appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed, in view of the earlier decision of the Hon&rsq....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is stated that though the application has been accepted by the respondents and all the dues have been paid by the appellant, appropriate order has not been passed on the application only on the ground of pendency of the present appeal. HELD THAT:- The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn - However, there shall be no order as to cost. Refund as per Rules.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 208 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  
  Rejection of Petitioner's declaration in form SVLDRS 1 under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- It is seen in the present case that as on 30th June, 2019, the four SCNs were not pending. In fact, these had been adjudicated and one consolidated order was passed in the four SCNs by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise. Likewise, one consolidated order was passed by the Appellate Authority in the combined appeal. This has further led to one appeal being filed before the CESTAT. The Petitioner is, therefore justified in contending that in relation to the single pending appeal before the CESTAT one declaration is required to be filed even in terms of Rule 3 (2) of the SVLDRS Rules. The Court is, therefore, unable to appreciate why on a hyper-techincal ground that four separate declarations were ....... + More

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 204 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - It is stated that though the application has been accepted by the respondents and all the dues have been paid by the appellant, appropriate order has not been passed on the application only on the ground of pendency of the present appeal. HELD THAT:- The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn - However, there shall be no order as to cost. Refund as per Rules.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 203 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  
  Rectification of mistake - amnesty scheme - Grievance of the petitioner is only limited to the finding recorded by the CESTAT that petitioner had played fraud on the court - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the settlement of tax liability of the petitioner through the amnesty scheme, we would not examine the grievance or otherwise as to the ultimate decision of the CESTAT. We are issuing notice only on the limited issue on the finding recorded by CESTAT that petitioner in the appeal had played fraud and the rejection of the rectification application on this point. Issue notice, returnable within six weeks - Stand over to 3rd November, 2020.

---

• 2020 (10) TMI 159 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
  
  Maintainability of petition - requirement of mandatory pre-deposit - the specific case of the petitioner was that in its appeal and during hearing they had submitted that an amount of ₹ 12,50,000/- has already been deposited and the demand notice dated 14th August 2019 contained an amount of ₹ 7,86,135/- which has been deposited before issuance of the said demand and required to be appropriated - HELD THAT:- Once a demand raised by the authority amounting to ₹ 22,99,635/- has attained finality up to the stage of Tribunal, there is no scope of considering the grievance of the petitioner regarding adjustment of any amount against this demand which might have been deposited by the petitioner at any stage prior to the demand raised by the petitioner. It is also found from the record that the petitioner himself had availed of....... + More

---