Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC
Citation -
Order by


Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 8723 Records

  • 2017 (12) TMI 638 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT

    Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited Formally known as Sun Pharma Drugs Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner Central Excise Customs and Service Tax, The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Gangtok Division, Siliguri

    Area Based Exemption - doctrine of promissory estoppel - notifications whittling down the exemption benefits - It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner started investing for setting up its first unit from the year 2005 only. Evidently therefore, the Petitioner had started the investment only after issuance of impugned Notification No. 27/2004 amending N/N. 56/2003 which notification put into operation the Industrial Policy, 2003. The ....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 627 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Varmora Foods Pvt. Ltd. & 1 Versus Union of India & 2

    Refund claim - amount deposited under coercion - Held that - the department cannot hold on any amount from the assessee, which the department has no authority in law to retain. If the petitioners had disputed the duty liability at the very outset and promptly taken up the issue with the authorities immediately, the question of the department s authority to withhold such amount would rest on entirely different considerations. The facts of the pres....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Shree Bhagwan Fabrics Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s. Visen Fabrics) Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise & The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai III

    Validity of Rule 96ZQ of the CER, 1944 - petitioner has claimed a declaration that Rule 96ZQ of the CER, 1944 is illegal and null and void and is liable to be struck down - Held that - In the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has held that Rule 96ZQ is invalid - the order imposing penalty in exercise of powers under Rule 96ZQ of the said Rules cannot be sustained - penalty set aside - a....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, CIDCO, Aurangabad Versus M/s Midas Care Pharma Pvt. Ltd.

    Maintainability of appeal - Section 35-G of the CEA, 1944 - It is contended that, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, and notwithstanding the fact that the appeals have been admitted, jurisdiction cannot vest in this Court when such jurisdiction is not specifically prescribed by the Statute - Held that - the issue which we are called upon to adjudicate, would lead to a decision (if the appellant succeeds) determining....... + More


    Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chandigarh Versus GM, Consumer Mobility, BSNL, Shimla

    Penalty - Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - when action of the assessee cannot be said to be mala fide or that there is no finding of fact of the assessee having perpetuated fraud, collusion or having made willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the Assessing Officer could not have exercised his power u/s 11A within the extended period of limitation so provided in terms of the proviso contained therein - appeal dismissed - decided....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Mahalaxmi Fibers Pvt. Ltd. Kadodara Paper Mill Compound & 1 Versus Union of India, Notice to be Served Through The Secretary & 3

    Valuation - Compounded Levy Scheme - section 3A of the Central Excise Act - annual production capacity - case of Revenue is that the petitioners had initially applied for being covered by annual production capacity regime and had availed all the notifications issued under the said scheme - Held that - Section 3A of the Central Excise Act introduced with effect from 16.12.1998 pertained to the power of Central Government to charge excise duty on t....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Ebiz. Com Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Versus Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (CESTAT & Anr.)

    On what basis is an issue concerning the jurisdiction of the CESTAT to entertain an appeal on the judicial side being referred by the Bench of the CESTAT to the President of the CESTAT on the administrative side? - Held that - Respondent no.1- CESTAT, has filed an affidavit through its Registrar. It is stated by the respondent that the matter was listed on the judicial side, when the two members Bench had referred the matter to the President on t....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Tamin Granites Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

    Validity of tribunal order - CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the appellant / assessee on monetary ground - Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the second respondent is right in depriving the appellant the statutory right as provided under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - On more than one occasion, the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision. Di....... + More

  • 2017 (12) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Versus Sreerama Scaffoldings Pvt Ltd

    Monetary limit involved in appeal - maintainability of appeal - Held that - Material on record discloses that apart from duty and interest, a sum of ₹ 9 lakhs has been ordered to be paid towards redemption penalty. A sum of ₹ 2,23,605/- (including cess) has been ordered as penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, for the delayed payment of Central Excise duty - Pe....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1520 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India and 2 Ors.

    Rebate claim - export related benefits - rule 16 of CER - manufacture of biscuits - Held that - in response to the prior correspondence attention of the BFPL was invited to discussions held on 5th April, 2004 when the Commissioner had apparently clarified that unless difficulties in observing the provisions of Rule 16(1) and (2) were established, no case had been made out for granting permission by Commissioner under Rule 16(3). During discussion....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1486 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    The Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Refund of duty paid under protest - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - In view of specific finding recorded by the Tribunal that the duty amount has been deposited under protest, limitation of one year to make the claim of refund under Section 11B would not apply at all to such a case and therefore the amount is liable to be refunded to the appellant along with interest excluding the period for which the p....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1180 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    M/s Vigyan Gurukul (A registerd partnership firm) Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise-I, NCRB, C-Scheme, Jaipur, The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

    Search and seizure proceedings - Whether on the facts and in totality of the circumstances of the case and in law, the entire search & seizure proceeding was illegal and unauthorised for want of compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in section 82 of the Act of 1994? - Held that - the decision in the case of Supreme Court in case of R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra 1972 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA referred, where it wa....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1179 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. National Torch and Tubes Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

    Rectification of mistake - CENVAT/MODVAT credit - inputs used in manufacture of Aluminum Slugs and Containers - denial on the ground that it were only paper transactions and that the appellants willfully suppressed the facts - Held that - Law is well settled. When a Court or a Tribunal records that a particular submission was made across the bar, the correctness of the recording as to what transpired before the Court or Tribunal cannot be gone in....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1104 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s Timex Watches Limited

    CENVAT/MODVAT credit - defective units - Rule 57-D of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the CENVAT/MODVAT Credit is admissible in respect of the inputs which were defective, unfit for use in the manufacturing of final goods & hence destroyed by the Respondent, without considering that the Respondent itself was unable to specify and identi....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1103 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur Versus M/s. Goyal Tobacco Company Pvt Ltd, Shri Rajesh Goyal, Director of M/s. Goyal Tobacco Company Pvt. Ltd.

    Clandestine removal - Whether the Hon ble CESTAT is correct in holding that confirmation of demand of duty on impugned goods was not sustainable merely on the basis of presence of machines and certain statements of laboureres and accountants whereas there were evidences in form of verification and still photography of machines and confessional statement of Shri Rajesh Goyal, Director? - maintainability of appeal - section 35-G of CEA. - Held that....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1102 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Versus M/s Rajasthan Foils Pvt Ltd., Shri L.K. Jha, Authorized Signatory, M/s Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd., Shri RK Sharma, Director, M/s Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sudershan Rout, Despatch Clerk, M/s Rajasthan Foils Pvt. Ltd.

    Clandestine removal - conversion of hot rolled Aluminium Strips/Coils into cold rolled aluminium coils - manufacture or not? - Held that - the Tribunal has to consider afresh on facts first and then on the law which has been cited by both the sides. In that view of the matter, in view of judgments cited by both the sides, we remit back the matters to the Tribunal - Endeavour is made by the counsel for the assessee that no point or substantial que....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1101 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    M/s Autolite India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur

    Liability of interest - Whether Tribunal was right in law in allowing the appeal of revenue with regard to imposition of interest u/s 11AB of the Act, especially when it is an admitted fact that the liability to pay the disputed duty arose on 18.12.2000 i.e. prior to the day when provisions of Section 11AB were not in force in terms of Section 11AB (2) of the CEA, 1944? - Held that - the observations made by the Tribunal is contrary to record and....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1100 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Jaipur (Presently Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate, Alwar) Versus M/s Balkrishan Industries Ltd.

    CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - Whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing the CENVAT credit of ₹ 27,33,393/- on unverified/re-constructed bills of entry without giving a chance to Revenue to verify them when the same were not proper/legal documents as per CCR? - Held that - credit on duty paid on air conditioners installed in office of the factory is admissible - In Board s Circular NO. 943/4/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011, it is ment....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Syssoft Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

    Rejection of Settlement Commission application - Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the application was filed prior to the receipt of the order of adjudication - Held that - the order-in-original was not dispatched to the petitioner, but from the facts on record it transpires that the same was served in-person. In writ jurisdiction, we cannot embark upon the disputed question of fact about the time the order was served - It would no....... + More

  • 2017 (11) TMI 1010 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

    Alom Extrusion Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise

    Validity of SCN - SCN premised upon Rule 8(3A) of the CER, 2002 - Held that - Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is held to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner........ + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version