Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 8520 Records

  • 2017 (8) TMI 596 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Ahmedabad Packaging Industries Ltd & 1 Versus Union of India & 2

    Power to review - scope of Section 35 C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Classification of goods - HDPE Tapes - the trade claimed that the goods were articles of plastic classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff, whereas the view of the Revenue was that they were textile goods classifiable under Chapter 54 of the Tariff - rectification of mistake - Held that - The plain and simple reading thereof would clearly reflect that t....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 595 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Kim Steel Strips Pvt. Ltd., Sanjiv Ajodia prasad Guta Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Belapur

    Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy - Section 35B (1)(b) of the Excise Act - Held that - the only ground for invoking the writ jurisdiction or seeking waiver of pre-deposit, is that the Petitioners are not in a financial condition to deposit the amount. In our considered view, this cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance to invoke the writ jurisdiction or to waive the pre-deposit, particularly when the amount required to be....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 594 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Advance Surfactants India Ltd Versus Union of India

    CENVAT credit - validity of proviso to Rule 3(4) - vires of Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - the effect of this proviso is that though a manufacturer is obliged to discharge excise duty liability by 5th or 6th day of the next month, the CENVAT Credit taken by the manufacturer only till the end of the month to which the excise duty related could be utilized and CENVAT Credit legally availed during the first 5 days or 6 days of the subs....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 593 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. A.S. Babu Sah Designs, M/s. Sovereign Finance Corporation, M/s. Babu Silks & Sarees Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-1) , Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Service Tax

    Jurisdiction - power of the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority - Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994 - Held that - the first respondent while exercising powers under Section 85 (4) of the Finance Act has powers to pass orders as he thinks fit and such orders will also include an order of remand and amendment to Section 35-A (3) with effect from 11.05.2001 does not in any manner impact the power ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 591 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. AP Steels Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Reduction in the quantum of penalty - clandestine removal of goods - Whether the order of the Tribunal rejecting option to pay penalty which is granted as a matter of right under Section 11AC is valid in law? - interpretation of provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - a conjoint reading of the main provision with the first proviso would have us conclude that, in the ordinary course, where, duty has not been levied....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 469 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida Versus M/s Orient Bell Ltd.

    Reversal of CENVAT credit - non-maintenance of separate records for taxable and exempt activity - trading activity - effect of amendment, retrospective or prospective? - Held that - The provision for payment of the aforesaid amount in view of not maintaining separate books of accounts was enforced vide Notification No.13 of 2011 dated 31st Mrach, 2011 w.e.f. 1st April, 2011 as is evident on the plain reading of the said notification. The subseque....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 312 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax, Silvassa Versus Sterlite Industries Ltd.

    Entitlement of interest - delayed grant of refund - Held that - There was delay in sanctioning the refund claim from three months after 27 September 2004 to 9 March 2006. The entitlement of interest, therefore, decided and by the impugned order the Respondent s Appeal was allowed. - The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Hamdard (WAQF) Laboratories 2016 (3) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT , while dealing with the interest of delayed refund is payable und....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 311 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited

    CENVAT credit - removal for use in another place - whether the assessee, which in this case is BSNL, could have claimed CENVAT credit in respect of capital equipment, which was removed for use to another place within the same zone? - Rule 3(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the assessee cannot be denied the right to avail the CENVAT credit - Rule 3(1)(i) allows, inter alia, a provider of output service to take CENVAT credit of any dut....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 310 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Chengalrayan Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Levy of duty - Molasses - whether the Assessee would be liable to pay duty on molasses, which is stored in earthen pits, i.e., Katcha pits, located within the factory premises? - Held that - Rule 9(1) would show that it, inter alia, prohibits removal of excisable goods whether for consumption, or, export, or, even for manufacture of any other commodity either in or outside the place where they are produced, cured or manufactured or any other prem....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 106 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    M/s K.A. Forward Shoe Factory Versus Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise And Another

    Penalty - Shortage of inputs - Jurisdiction - Whether the CESTAT was justified in imposing penalty u/s 11AC of the Act, ignoring the fact that the Appellant has voluntarily paid the amount of duty equivalent to cenvat credit availed on the shortage of inputs as such issuance of show cause notice itself is without jurisdiction in view Section 11A(2B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - the excise duty not levied or paid or short-levied ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Versus M/s Xerox India Ltd.

    Refund claim - doctrine of unjust enrichment - Whether the CESTAT is justified in allowing the appeals of the respondent assessee and in permitting refund of excise duty to it under Section 11B of the Act even though the presumption of Section 12B of the Act was not successfully dislodged by the respondent assessee? - Held that - when no presumption arises under Section 12B of the Act, it is not for the respondent assessee to dislodge any such pr....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Ankit Ispat (P) Ltd., (Unit I) Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Principles of Natural Justice - Shortage of MS Ignots - difference between the book stock and the physical stock - whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to go before the respondent by directing a de-novo proceedings to be conducted on the ground that they did not file their reply to the show cause notices and were not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing? - maintainability of petition - Held that - this is not a case, whe....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Rangoli Furnishings Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Punit Saraf, Director Versus CCE, Rohtak

    Penalty u/r 209A of the CER 1944 - job-work - clearance of goods without cover of any invoice and without paying the duty - Held that - appellant cleared the goods on simple private challans/jobwork challans without following the procedure prescribed in Central Excise Law. The culpability of appellants is also proved by the fact that during the day of search, unaccounted stock of 3232 pcs of Towels valued at ₹ 2,14,096/- was found. In the s....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Attikunna Tea Factory, M/s. Carolyn Tea Factory Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    CENVAT credit - reversal of the final orders and re-adjudication - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that when the dispute raised is touching the valuation of the property, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal - CESTAT is directed to adj....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Mak Control & Systems Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    CENVAT credit - reversal of the final orders and re-adjudication - Held that - reliance placed in the case of M/s. Roots Multiclean Ltd. Versus The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise 2016 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that when the dispute raised is touching the valuation of the property, the Tribunal has no discretion to refuse to admit the appeal - CESTAT is directed to adj....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 987 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Versus M.S.S. Foods Processors, M/s Elora Tobacco Co. Ltd., Kishore Wadhwani

    Natural justice - opportunity to the noticee to cross examine the witnesses - rehearing of case - error apparent on the face of record - Held that - the Apex Court has held that rehearing of a case can be done on account of some mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason - In the present case, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the petitioner in fact under the guise of review is....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 796 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Customs And Central Excise And Sercice Tax Versus Grasim Industries Ltd. (Sfd)

    CENVAT credit - time limitation - Section 11A of the Act - whether the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation, taking into account Section 11A of the Act? - Held that - A similar question was considered by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay 1994 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that the allegation of willful suppression with intent to....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 795 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Service Tax, Noida Versus M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.

    Maintainability of appeal - Held that - there is no dispute to the fact that the appeal involves the determination of the question having relation to the rate of duty of excise which inter-alia includes the exemption of the duty. - A Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise Vs. Eco Products (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2013 (6) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT , in relation to Section 35 (G) and 35 (L) of the Cen....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 718 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Indo Swiss Embroidery Industries Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi

    Classification of goods - AED - Embroidered Grey Fabrics - the central excise department alleged that the appellant had incorrectly classified the product under chapter heading No. 5804.11 as Lace/Motif of Cotton instead of chapter heading No. 5804.19 as Embroidery . The department was of the view that the appellant is liable to pay AED (TTA) 15 instead of 8 w.e.f. 20/08/1998 onwards - demand of interest - Held that - Sections 11AC and 11AB of Ex....... + More


  • 2017 (7) TMI 717 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    K. Elumalai Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Chennai, The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Zonal Unit Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad, The Additional Director, Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence, T. Nagar, Chennai

    Maintainability of Summon order of petitioner - Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether a Writ Court can injunct or quash a summon? - Held that - similar issue decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, vs. MM Exports, 2007 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , wherein, it was held that High Court should not interfere at the stage when the department issues summons except in exceptional cases an....... + More


1........
 
 
 


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version