|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 10103 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.
- 2021 (5) TMI 191 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
SVLDRS - seeking to issue Form SVLRDS 3 for the amount stated - seeking an opportunity to present its case by providing a personal hearing - HELD THAT:- The impugned order which is sketchy in nature and does not assign adequate reasons, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent department to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of MESSRS SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (9) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that declaration filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are required to be considered by the designated committee without payment of redemption fine by the declarant. A fresh decision be taken by the department expeditiously - petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (5) TMI 127 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Area based exemption - benefits under the Northeast Industrial Policy - N/N. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- This petition is instituted on the grievance that the Notification dated 27.03.2008 having been restored as per the judgment of the Supreme Court, an application dated 01.04.2021 under Clause 3(1) of the Notification No.20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 was submitted by the petitioner claiming for a special rate, but the same has not been given its consideration and without giving a due consideration to the claim for special rate made by the petitioners, the respondents now intend to make recovery on the premises that the refund of excise duty would be as per the rates provided in the Notification dated 27.03.2008. As the Notification dated 27.03.2008 provides for a legal right to the assessee to claim f....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Excisability - repacking the tobacco products by scenting - process amounting to manufacture or not - HELD THAT:- In the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works vs. Commissioner [2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that manufacture and crushing betel nuts into smaller pieces and sweetening the same with essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agencies etc., did not result in manufacture of a new and distinct product having a different character and use as end product continues to retain its original character though in a modified form - the facts are entirely different and as far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the original character is not modified, then it need not be considered as a manufacturing, but in the present case suc....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1207 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - order passed against a dead person - HELD THAT:- The contention that the order was passed against a dead person is incorrect, as the legal representative/son of the deceased participated in the enquiry proceedings and thereafter, the final order was passed by the Commissioner and a copy of the same was also communicated to the son of the deceased. This being the factum, the grounds raised in the writ petition deserve no merit for consideration. It is clear that the petitioner has to exhaust the statutory remedy provided under the Act and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot adjudicate disputed facts, which are all to be adjudicated with reference to the documents as well as the evidences to be produced before the competent authority and before....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of additional duty liability - duty imposed by restricting the loss due to the drying of tobacco leaves (driage of tobacco leaves) to 10% as against 24% claimed by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The proceedings before the Settlement Commission proceeds on the principal of trust. An applicant who was admittedly an evader of tax is expected to make a clean breast of his tax sins before the Settlement Commission and atone for mistakes and should undertake to pay the tax by making true and full disclosure before it - As an incentive to encourage such deviant assessee’s who opt to alter their deviant ways, a golden chance is given to them for settling the case under the Act. In return such assessee’s may be given immunity from prosecution and penalty under the scheme of the Act. Further, the 1st respondent Settlement Commission ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1166 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of Personal penalty on petitioner - service of notices of personal hearing not done - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From the reply of the company, it can be deduced unequivocally that the show cause notice and the personal hearing notices have not been served upon the petitioner. It has a reference of the first show cause notice served upon the company and therefore, it assumed that the show cause notice and the personal hearing notices have been served upon the present petitioner also - this stand on the part of the respondent of not having known the changed address of petitioner on his having failed to put to the notice of department is wholly unacceptable. Failure to send the show cause notice and the notices of personal hearing therefore, upon the last known address of the petitioner is also unsustainab....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1164 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Applicability of Doctrine of unjust enrichment - manufacturer paid the differential disputed excise duty under protest when the assessment was finalized in favour of the manufacturer - HELD THAT:- Indisputably, the application was filed by the appellant as a buyer of the goods from the supplier namely the said M/s.Fenner India Ltd., which paid duty under protest after the period of limitation prescribed in law and therefore, this would dis-entitle the claim of refund to the assessee as prayed for by applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-II VERSUS ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD. [2004 (3) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that the purchaser of the goods was not entitled to a claim for refund of duty made under protest by the manufacturer without....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1135 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rebate of central excise duty - time limitation - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - case of petitioner is that his is a case of return of pre-deposit and of the Central Excise duty paid by the petitioner on any excisable goods and for such return of pre-deposit the petitioner is not required to file any formal refund claim under section 11B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- This Court, at length, considered section 11B of the Act to hold that the person claiming refund of excise duty and interest, has to make an application for refund of such duty and interest to the authority enumerated therein before the expiry of one year from the relevant date in such form and manner as may be prescribed - The relevant date is defined in Explanation (A) and Explanation (B). The date on which the Tribunal allowed the appeal preferred by....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1109 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Default in payment of duty - Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of CER or section 11A of CEA - applicability of the case of Gujarat High Court in Indsur Global Ltd's case [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]- HELD THAT:- In the instant case, admittedly the assessee had already paid as duty even before the audit declared amounts as payable. Rule 8(3A) applies to cases where the assessee had defaulted in payment of excise duty beyond 30 days from the due date. So, the said rule cannot apply to the instant case and as rightly held by the CESTAT, the said Rule does not apply to every case where in the department, during the scrutiny of returns, during audit or during investigation finds any additional amount payable as duty of excise. Such demands would be recoverable by issuing a notice under Section 11A of the Act and would be covered unde....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1105 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Issuance of form SVLDRS-3 either electronically or manually - allowing the Petitioner to pay tax dues beyond 30th June, 2020 either electronically or manually - HELD THAT:- The Opposite Parties 3 and 4 are not justified in contending that only because the Petitioner filed SVLDRS-1 before the Rourkela Commissionerate, its request for acceptance of the declaration and payment of the admitted tax amount could not be considered. The Court finds this to be a hyper technical approach. As regards the Petitioner not availing the opportunity of hearing, the Court finds plausible the explanation offered by the Petitioner that it was unable to upload the documents in form SVLDRS-2A on 20th March, 2020 unless the answer to the question whether it wanted a personal hearing was answered in the negative. This appears to have been done involuntarily and ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1052 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sale of mortgaged property for recovery of excise dues - priority of secured debt over excise duty dues - Petitioner has purchased all the security that was owned by borrowers - HELD THAT:- In the present case as well there is only purchase of land by Petitioner in the auction conducted by DRT, Kolkata and not transfer or disposal of business or trade in whole or in part but only a transfer or disposal of mere landed asset, the proviso to section 11 of the Excise Act would not be attracted. A secured creditor has priority over crown debts/excise dues. Going forward, this is a case where petitioner has purchased land in an auction conducted pursuant to proceedings under the RDDB Act by the Debt Recovery Tribunal Kolkata of the property belonging to the Respondent No. 3 company. Petitioner is not a successor of the business of the erstwhile....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 1042 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of Excise Duty - Compounded Levy Scheme - closure of production units - Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S. BHUWALKA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT] is regarding the general question which was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court and further, the said judgment has been referred to the larger bench. However, the fact remains that the petitioner in the present case had opted for Compounded Levy Scheme which was not dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, the case on hand is to be decided independently with reference to the terms and conditions of the Compounded Levy Scheme which was framed under the provisions of the Act and Rules. When the petitione....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 824 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
ISD credit - GTA credit - delay on the part of the petitioner in responding to the communication - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There was absolutely no delay on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand, the relevant materials furnished by the petitioner were not taken note of before passing the impugned order on 30.12.2020. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has to necessarily revisit the issue by taking note of all the particulars and the materials furnished by the petitioner on 30.12.2020. Of-course, the adjudicating authority will take note of the earlier reply submitted by the petitioner herein. Interest of justice requires that personal hearing is afforded to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel would state that the petitioner would appear promptly on the date to be fixed by the adjudicating authority for....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 693 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Violation of principles of natural Justice - officer who had heard the petitioners personally at Annand, has not decided the matter and instead it is the Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, who adjudicated the matter - substantial delay in delivering the judgment after having heard the parties - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the order is appealable under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides for appeal to the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appeal is communicated. The alternative efficacious remedy is available. Therefore, we are inclined to relegate the parties to the CESTAT. We could not oblivious of the averments of breach of principles of natural justice and also the emphasis on the delay in delivering the judgment an....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 604 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - Input service distribution - unit exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted goods - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in 'CCE vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd' [2011 (2) TMI 1130 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] has held that the registered input service distributor is entitled to distribute credit, subject to the conditions mentioned in Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The aforesaid decision which has a bearing on the controversy involved in the appeal has also not been considered. Therefore, the substantial question of law framed in this appeal is answered in favour of the assessee. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the aforesaid order is cryptic and suffers from vice of non-application of mind. The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons in respect of its finding and has....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 368 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Liability of Central Excise Duty - principal manufacturer or job-worker - Territorial Jurisdiction - Recovery of duty u/s 11D as amount collected in the name of Duty of central excise - safety razor blades and shaving system - It was alleged that as principal manufacturer, petitioner had failed to discharge the duty in terms of the provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act on the goods cleared by Tigaksha from its factory at Una, Himachal Pradesh - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- it is evidently clear that the taxable event i.e. manufacture of the goods in question had taken place in the factory premises of Tigaksha at Una in Himachal Pradesh. Thus, neither respondent No.2 nor respondent No.3 has the territorial jurisdiction to issue any notice to show cause-cum-demand for levy of central excise duty on such products........ + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 321 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Entitlement to petitioner's surrender leave salary for 64 days payable from the date of retirement to till the date of actual payment - respondents have not settled the surrender leave salary, at the time of retirement and now seeking disbursement - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by various orders of this Court, in the case of S. ALAGESAN VERSUS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LTD., THE GENERAL MANAGER TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM LTD. [2019 (12) TMI 1471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] wherein an issue was dealt in the case of THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM, THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KUMBAKONAM) LIMITED, PUDUKKOTTAI. VERSUS D. SOUNDARARAJAN [2019 (9) TMI 1512 ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 317 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Benefit of SVLDRS - SCN was issued for Recovery of amount refunded erroneously - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - benefit of scheme rejected by the designated committee holding that by virtue of provisions of Section 125(1) (d) of the Act of 2019, the petitioner is not eligible for benefits inasmuch as, the issue pertains to amount refunded erroneously - Sections 121 (c) & 125 (1) (d) of Finance Act, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Undoubtedly, Section 121(c) defines 'amount of arrears' means the amount of duty, which is recoverable as arrears of duty under the direct tax enactment in the situations specified. It in no manner deals with the amount of erroneous refund recoverable from the assessee. Moreover, the provisions of Section 125(1) (b) specifically exclude the persons from eligibility to make a declaration u....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 226 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Judicial Review of Show Cause Notice (SCN) - whether refunds granted earlier pursuant to the Judgment of the Apex Court can be considered to be refunds erroneously granted in view of the subsequent Judgment of the Apex Court - Recovery of refunded Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess - Section 11A(i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Interest in terms of Section 11AA of the Act - Area based exemption ELD THAT:- The term “erroneous” any error deviating from law. A change of law subsequently would not make an action taken earlier by Quasi Judicial Authority in terms of law as it stood then, to be held to be erroneous so as to enable the Departmental Officer to invoke powers under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. On perusal of Section 11A reveals that the power under Section 11A for recovery of duties not ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 138 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Revising the order of Rejection of refund claims - the appeals filed by Revenue (against grant of refund) were earlier dismissed on the grounds of monetary limit - benefits in terms of Notification No. 20/2007 CE dated 25.04.2007 - area based exemption - substantial expansion - HELD THAT:- In the recital of the impugned order the respondent No. 3 refused to accept that the petitioner complied with the requirement of the Notification No. 20/2007 dated 25.04.2007 regarding investments of fixed assets more than 25% towards expansion of the manufacturing unit. Although, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is referred to, however, the respondent No. 3 did not elaborate as to why it disagreed with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) although, the petitioners submitted their objections in response to the said show cause notice and had....... + More
........
|
