|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 10620 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.
-
2023 (11) TMI 1072
Validity of SCN - Recovery of Refund claim - Issuance of impugned notices for return of the Cess, since earlier it had been refunded on the basis of then valid law, as laid down by the Supreme Court. HELD THAT:- When the matters were taken up for final consideration, it was reported to this Court that, the same issue was pending before the Supreme Court, and as such, all these matters were adjourned on many dates, to await the outcome thereof. The matters before the Supreme Court were then disposed of vide order dated 04.07.2022, whereby the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court overruling M/S. SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI [ 2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT] in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA OTHERS [ 2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] was held, to....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 678
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - appearance before the trial Court to face the trial in pursuance of summoning order - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from the record that after presentation of the complaint by the respondent, the present petitioner alongwith other accused have been ordered to be summoned by the trial Court. All the documentary evidence has already been collected by the respondent and the custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose, at this stage. Without commenting any further on the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today and on his appearance, he shall be admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety bonds/bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 60
Pre-deposit - Requirement of mandatory pre-deposit u/s 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994 - financial hardship involved in such compliance - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the application would go on to show that the merits of the case had been addressed as to the liability of the petitioner to pay service tax as in the application there has been no such averment made regarding the undue hardship which would be caused to the petitioner which the Tribunal could have decided upon regarding dispensing with the liability subject to certain conditions. The amount mentioned in the application itself is Rs. 10,08,243/- and bare averment has been made that it would lead to great financial hardship to the appellant-firm which has already raised loans to the extent of Rs. 12,49,76,747/- which are outstan....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 1215
Grant of Sanction for prosecution - petitioners would submit that the Prosecution is bad in law since no proposal was made for prosecuting the second petitioner - HELD THAT:- Any sanction required to be issued by a specified authority which would be the competent authority, the documents pertaining to the case have to be examined by such competent authority and proceedings have to be issued by giving reasons as to why prosecution has to be launched. A duty is cast upon the competent authority to apply its mind to the facts of the case to grant sanction. A statute requiring sanction to be made is for the purpose or ensuring that criminal prosecution is not launched vexatiously or improperly or in a routine manner or when no offence is made out. The competent authority has to shoulder responsibility of scrutinizing the available material....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 1111
CENVAT Credit - machineries used in the co-generation/captive power plant - electricity - exempted product applying the terms of rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 or not - Revenue had observed that the co-generation power plant is a turn-key project like power plants which are not excisable goods. HELD THAT:- The show cause notices which are the subject matter of these writ petitions have been issued between the period 2009 to 2015 on the ground that the machineries/components which are used in the cogeneration plant is being used for generating electricity which is an exempted commodity and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to CENVAT Credit. This conclusion has been arrived at by applying the provisions of Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 which states that CENVAT Credit cannot be allowed on capital goods ....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 1110
Delay in issue of show cause notice under Section 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - taking almost full 9 years for adjudication of the show cause notice after the first remand order - not considering the judgements regarding grant of cross-examination and the interpretation of section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - remanding the case second time in August 2022 to the original adjudicating authority - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal by the impugned order has only remanded the matter directing the authority to decide the matter afresh. There are no question of law muchless substantial question of law arising in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 1069
Benefits under the budgetary scheme dated 5-10-2017 - Utilization of Cenvat credit for the purpose of payment of taxes with reference to the exemption notification dated 25-7-2007 - stage to pay the taxes by cash after exhausting the Cenvat credit was yet to come - whether the units have availed the benefit under the notification dated 25-7-2007, with reference to the subsequent scheme dated 5-10-2017? HELD THAT:- A reading of the communication dated 22-2-2023 makes it discernible that a decision had been taken that even in respect of those units who had paid their tax dues pursuant to the earlier exemption notification dated 25-7-2007 by utilizing the Cenvat credit, but the stage to pay the further taxes by means of cash was yet to come, would be considered by the authorities to be units who have availed the benefits under the earl....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 1046
Relevant date for calculation of interest - interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would accrue from the date of expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of application for refund (or) on the expiry of 3 months from the date of communication of the order of the Appellate authority / Court? HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the present issue viz., whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act would accrue/commence from the date of expiry of 3 months from the date of receipt of application for refund (or) on the expiry of 3 months from the date of the order to the adjudicating authority/ Court stands resolved by the judgment of the Supreme Court in RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] reported in 2011 (273) ELT 3 w....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 879
Violation of principles of unjust enrichment - failure to prove that duty burden has not been passed ignoring the evidence of records in the form of Books of Accounts, certificate from Oil marketing PSUs, especially in the backdrop of presumptive statutory provisions under Section 12B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The assessee has shown duty element in the invoices as per the provisions of S.12-A of the Act. It is also stated that the same has not been recovered from their customers and the excess paid amount of Rs.32,65,057/- is shown as outstanding balance as receivables in their balance-sheet - Nonetheless, nothing concrete has been placed on record that the duty element shown in the invoices issued to customers has not been recovered from the customers. Under such circumstances, the concurrent finding of Tribunal that i....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 878
Entitlement to avail the credit of duty paid by the input supplier - correctness of denial of credit on the ground that the activity as the input supplier end was a non-manufacturing activity and thus the input supplier should not have paid the duty. HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee by observing that even if the activity at the end of the input supplier has been held to be a non-manufacturing activity, the input recipient would be entitled to the credit of the duty so paid by the input manufacturer and rightly set aside the order dated 21.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III Commissionerate, Gurgaon, for recovery of inadmissible Cenvat Credit of Rs.43,55,22,721/- alongwith interest (Annexure A-7). No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The present appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (10) TMI 807
Refund of duty paid on inputs for executing the export obligations under Rule 18 of CER read with notification No. 41/2001-CE (NT) dated 26 June 2001 - Misconstruction of Clause 4 (c) of the Notification dated 26 June 2001 which permitted removal of waste on payment of duty if such waste was manufactured or processed out of the factory of the applicant seeking rebate. HELD THAT:- There is no gainsaying that the fixation of input output norms is done to enable the manufacturer exporters to seek rebate for the inputs used in the export of the manufactured product. Admittedly, the goods had been duly exported presumably meeting with all the relevant regulatory norms between the period September, 2003 to January, 2004. It is pertinent to indicate that two rebate claims were filed on 07 January 2004 and third one on 01 March 2004, wherea....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 428
Wrongful availment of CENVAT credit - Removal of machinery after two days of taking credit - Failure to correctly interpret and apply the provisions of Rule 4, Rule 11A, 11AB and 11AC of the Cenvat Credit rules, 2002 - suppression/mis-statement of facts - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the contentions of the parties held that the appellant had availed 50% of the credit on both the Autoconers at their Baddi plant on 29.01.2002; after availing credit on both the machines if there was transfer of one of the two Autoconers to Guna plant during 2001-2002, the right course would have been to debit the full credit of Rs. 5,62.949/- pertaining to the transfer of Autoconer and to take its full credit at the Guna plant - The Tribunal held that the fact of removal of one Autoconer to Guna Pla....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 351
Refund claim - unspent amount lying in the current account (PLA) of an assessee - amount is merely an advance amount for payment of excise duty or is actually or shall be deemed to be Excise Duty for the purpose of claim of refund - HELD THAT:- As is evident from bare reading of Section 3 of CEA, in particular sub-section 1 thereof, duty of excise is leviable on all excisable goods which are produced or manufactured in India in the manner prescribed and at the rates set forth in Fourth Schedule. It is, thus, crystal clear that event of levy and collection of duty of excise is the production and manufacture of the excisable goods though, as prescribed, the duty is actually paid by the manufacturer at the stage of removal of excisable goods from the manufacturing unit or production house as the case may be. The amount credited into ....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 167
100% EOU - Import of Cotton contained in Cotton Waste which is subsequently cleared at NIL rate of duty - Fulfilment of conditions of Exemption Notification No. 23/03-CE dated 31.03.2003 or not - benefit of N/N. 53/97 dated 03.06.1997 Notification No. 52/03- Cus dated 31.03.2003. HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the assessee s unit is an export-oriented unit (EOU) since the year 1997, hence, being entitled to the benefits as conferred under the EXIM policy. It also appears to be not in dispute that the assessee was clearing cotton waste which was generated from the process of manufacturing of cotton yarn. Thus cotton waste was not the product for which the LOP was granted. Such cotton waste was excisable and the rate of duty specified for cotton waste being Nil, also appears to be not in dispute. Even otherwise, in respect of....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 166
Application under SVDLR rejected - Rejection of application on the ground that the issue was pending before the Settlement Commission - ineligibility in light of Section 125(1) (g) of the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2019 - HELD THAT:- In the perception of the respondents, the petitioner no. 1 was held ineligible in light of Section 125(1) (g) of the Finance Act (No. 2) of 2019. The stand of the respondents is misconceived. Though the petitioners had filed application before the Settlement Commission, the said application was already decided by the Settlement Commission in the year 2002. When there are arrears emerging out of orders of the Settlement Commission, the assessee is eligible under the scheme. Therefore though no appeal or reference were pending, here was a case where the Settlement Commission had passed a Final Order on 24....... + More
-
2023 (10) TMI 55
Valuation of Inter-unit transfer of goods for captive consumption - entire value (i.e. 115% / 110% of the cost of production) or the actual cost of production (that is 100% of cost) excluding notional loading (that is 115% / 110%) of the goods manufactured by 1 unit, would be the cost of raw material of the another unit (who used the goods in the manufacture of another article) for the purpose of determining the value under Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules and Cost Accounting Standard-4 issued by ICWAI - Confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine - penalty. HELD THAT:- It would be appropriate that this appeal is remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order dated 22nd March 2013 with a direction that the Tribunal on remand reconsiders the issue in the light of the decision of the larger bench in the case of M/S ITC LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI [ 2016 (4) TMI 280 - CESTAT CHENNAI] . Appeal disposed off.
-
2023 (10) TMI 54
Condonation of delay in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) - sufficient reason for delay provided or not - delay occurred on account of illness of appellant - HELD THAT:- The plea of illness put forth by the appellant for explaining the delay caused in filing of the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) is on the face of the record untenable. The the demand notice of which the appellant is aggrieved was passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Dibrugarh Division on 01.05.2019. The limitation for filing appeal against this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) is 60 days which may be further extended by 30 days as per Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The appellant has annexed the documents of his medical condition and the travel documents along with the writ petition, a perusal whereof would reveal that the appellant proce....... + More
-
2023 (9) TMI 1252
Refund of Service Tax - refund claim was filed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Similar is the view which has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Parijat Construction vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik [ 2017 (10) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] . It would thus appear that High Courts across the board have taken a consistent view that where once it is found that the assessee was not liable to be subjected to a service tax, it would not be bound by the limitation as prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. This would also appear to appeal to reason since undisputedly and in terms of Article 265 of the Constitution, the Union can only levy a tax which is authorized by law. Since it is conceded before us that the respondent was not liable to pay any service tax, it....... + More
-
2023 (9) TMI 1190
Condonation of delay in filing revision application - Exclusion time spend for pursuing the appeal before CESTAT (wrong forum) - Time limitation - time barred order as filed beyond period prescribed under the statute - convincing reason or not - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, a revision application against an order passed under the provisions of the Act, 1944, by the appellate authority can be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of the order to the applicant and as per proviso to Section 35EE (2), if the Central Government is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by any sufficient cause for presenting the revision application within the period of 3 months, it may allow the same to be presented within a further period of 3 months. Meaning thereby that as per provision of Section 35EE, a revision application could not be....... + More
-
2023 (9) TMI 1090
Time Limitation - Rejection of demand for duty raised by the appellant - rejection on the ground that the demand was made beyond the normal period of 6 (six) months from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate that they had made any provisional assessment in respect of the respondent. It is also seen that the appellant had not raised any demand upon the respondent for payment of Excise Duty for the period from 28.02.1986 to 25.07.1989 and from 26.07.1989 to 28.02.1993. The appellant has not been able to demonstrate that the respondent had not paid the appropriate Excise duty by reason of fraud, collusion or any willful mistake or suppression of facts or in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, the appellant has failed to make out....... + More
........
|
