Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
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 8405 Records

  • 2017 (4) TMI 1173 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Harisons Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others

    Principles of natural justice - denial of cross-examination of the supplier / manufacturer / dealer / transporters whose statements were relied upon while adjudicating the SCN - Held that - the record of the proceedings before the adjudicating authority would indicate that at no stage any request was made to summon a particular person for cross-examination whose statement was attempted to be used by the Revenue - he reasons assigned so as to conf....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 1172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    M/s Raltronics India Pvt Ltd Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Another

    Remission of duty - Rule 21 of the CER 2002 - Whether the loss and destruction of goods because of accidental fire which took place in the appellant factory falls within the meaning of the phrase goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident for purposes of remission of duty? - Held that - The goods have been destroyed in fire and there is no evidence that no preventive measures were taken by the appellant then it....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 1170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Mantra Industries Limited, G. Velmurugan Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax

    Maintainability of petition - statutory appellate remedy - the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to entertain these writ petitions by contending that the first respondent has not applied a binding decision of the Tribunal made in Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai III case, since the issue involved in the said case and the facts and circumstances of the present case are one and the same - Held tha....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. India Nippon Electricals Limited Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise

    CENVAT credit - outdoor caterer - Whether the outdoor caterer providing refreshment to the employees of the appellants is eligible to be an input services used by the manufacturer, directly or indirectly, in or in relation to the manufacture of final products? - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of I.P.Rings Limited in C.M.A.No.3185 of 2010, where it was decided in favor of assessee - appeal allowed - decided i....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 1167 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

    Refund claim - unjust enrichment - section 11A - Held that - Section 11A of the Act shall not be applicable as it was not the case of recovery of duty on erroneous refund - The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority by giving one additional opportunity to the appellant assessee to produce the requisite certificate from the Government and the appellant assessee failed to produce the certificate from the Government and failed to satisfy ....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 1082 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Visteon Automotive Systems (India) Private Limited Versus The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

    Period for payment of interest u/s 11 AB of the CEA, 1944 - interest on differential duty on additional amount received - price escalation clause - Department, seeks payment of interest in the form of compensation, for the period commencing from the date, when, duty was first paid on the original price of the goods till the period ending with, when duty once again upon receipt of additional consideration by the appellant - Held that - the decisio....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 944 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

    M/s. Sova Solar Ltd. & Another Versus Central Excise, Durgapur

    Maintainability of appeal - alternative remedy - dismissal on the ground that the order assailed in the writ petition was appealable order and there was alternative remedy under the CEA, 1944 - Held that - we cannot intervene on a point not specifically pleaded before us, on the basis of oral submission of the learned counsel on procedural issues, arising subsequent to delivery of the judgement by the learned First Court - We do not find any purp....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 942 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus Kei Industries Limited

    Maintainability of appeal - project import - the subject issue is pending before the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Om Metals Spml Jv Unit 2 Versus CCE & ST, Jaipur 2013 (11) TMI 1361 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Held that - Since the very subject issue is pending before the Apex Court, of which we have made a reference, we consider it appropriate to dispose of the instant appeal on the terms referred to supra and it will be open for the parties to m....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 851 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Commissioner Central Excise, Rohtak Versus Saint Gobain Gyproc India Ltd.

    Refund claim - unjust enrichment - refund claim forming part of finished goods - Held that - the Tribunal took into account the relevant factors such as the certificates issued by the independent Chartered Accountants. The Tribunal satisfied itself that the Chartered Accountants had verified the books and on such verification certified that the refund claimed did not form part of the finished goods. The Tribunal conclusion that the appellant had,....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 850 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Cassel Research Laboratories Pvt Ltd. Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Maintainability of appeal - Appellant has failed to submit the income tax assessment order to substantiate that the depreciation claimed on the capital goods was reversed. In absence of evidence, the matter not being possible to conclude, appeal is rejected accordingly - Held that - It is not disputed by Ms.Hemalatha, who appears for the Revenue, that such evidence was placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, both the counsels are agreed that the i....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 849 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    M/s. Maheshwari Industries, represented by its Proprietor, Sri Narayan Das Lohiya Versus M/s. Annapurna Industries

    SSI exemption - N/N. 8/2003, dated 01-3-2003 - use of brand name of others - It was alleged by the officials that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of the branded items, not entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification and that therefore the appellants ought to have registered themselves under the CEA, 1944. - Whether the purchase of standard moulds containing certain names as inscriptions and the manufacture of prod....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 749 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    GAUTAM SHANTILAL SHAH AND 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 3

    Restoration of appeal - Condonation of delay in making pre-deposit - due to technical errors, there was a delay in making pre-deposit - Held that - on account of some server problem the amount, though arranged for could not be deposited within the time granted by the Tribunal and there as a delay of two days in making the pre-deposit. In the opinion of this court, the delay of two days in making the pre-deposit in the circumstances narrated above....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 695 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Versus M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd., Gyan Chand Goyal, Ankit Garg, Arun Goyal

    Benefit of N/N. 50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - setting up of new industrial unit - enhancement of installed capacity - manufacture of LPG Cylinders - the stand of the Department was that there were two types of manufacturing divisions, namely, the Cylinder Division and the Conductor Division. Therefore, the installed capacity must be of both the Divisions together. The enhancement of installed capacity only relating to the Cylinder Division would ....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 694 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    M/s. Andhra Cements Limited Versus The commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Industries A.P.

    Interest - Section 11AA of the CEA, 1944 - BIFR Scheme by which appellant was granted permission to pay duty in five instalments with waiver of interest and penalty - The sheet anchor of the case of the petitioner is the scheme sanctioned by BIFR on 21.07.2008 and the order passed by AAIFR on 03.12.2014 - whether petitioner is liable to pay interest or not? - Held that - the petitioner has to be seen as a person who gained advantage from a Civil ....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 693 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Gautam Shantilal Shah Versus Union of India

    Pre-deposit - condonation of delay - the petitioner was not able to make the pre-deposit within the time stipulated by the Tribunal and there was one day s delay in depositing such amount - Held that - there does not appear to be any deliberate intention on the part of the petitioner to delay payment of the pre-deposit. On account of some server problem the amount, though arranged for could not be deposited within the time granted by the Tribunal....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 645 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Nilaben Jayantilal Mandviwala Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

    Maintanability of appeal - what is subject matter of challenge in the petition is an Order-In-Original dated 28.12.2016 passed by the adjudicating authority - Held that - When there is an efficacious alternative remedy available under the statute, this court, would not ordinarily exercise powers under article 226 of the Constitution India unless it is pointed out that the order impugned is without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction or that t....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 434 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    MADHUSUDAN INDUSTRIES LTD AND 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA AND 2

    Maintainability of appeal - dismissal on the ground that the panchnamas, statements by the appellants are illegible and some of the statements are in vernacular language (Gujarati) and not translated ones - The Appellate Tribunal was further of the view that the appeal was of 2006 and hence, there was no reason to keep it pending - Held that - sub-rule (1) of rule 11 of the rules, the Tribunal can upon sufficient cause being shown, in its discret....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Mr. Gaurav Agarwal Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Another

    Recovery of dues of sole proprietor concern - both proprietress as well as power of attorney holder of concern died - whether the dues of such concern can be recovered from legal heirs of the owners? - Held that - The law itself does not permit continuation of the recovery proceedings against the heirs and legal representatives of sole proprietors/proprietress who are carrying on business of manufacturing of excisable goods as a sole proprietor/p....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 332 - PATNA HIGH COURT

    Prabhat Zarda Factory India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India

    Valuation - Section 3A of CEA, 1944 - Zarda - Chewing Tobacco - The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 published a Notification on 27th February, 2010 notifying Chewing Tobacco as notified goods. As a consequence of such Notification, the levy and collection of the excise duty was to be done in accordance with the provisions of Section 3A of the Excise Act. In terms of the Rules....... + More


  • 2017 (4) TMI 270 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Bilaspur Versus Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.

    Validity of SCN - CESTAT had held that the notice issued to the assessee is beyond the period of limitation and hence has quashed the same - Held that - Section 11A(3) of the CEA, 1944 provides limitation of one year to the Central Excise Officer to issue notice to the assessee. However, sub-section (4) provides that when there is fraud; collusion; any wilful misstatement; suppression of fact and contravention of any of the provisions of this Act....... + 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