Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9826 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.
- 2020 (1) TMI 999
Benefit in the “Arrears Category” of SAB KA VISHWAS (LEGACY DISPUTE RESOLUTION) Scheme 2019 (svldrs scheme) - HELD THAT:- There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Scheme in question being for the benefit of Assesses needs to be construed liberally to effectuate the purpose and therefore, if the petitioners’ claim cannot be considered under the Arrears Category, they should be permitted to avail the benefit under any other Category into which their case is fit; the respondents in their Statement of Objection dated 09.01.2020 at paragraph 6 have specifically stated that though the petitioners are not entitled to stake their claim under Arrears Category, they may opt for the benefit under Voluntary Disclosure Category; the statement of the learned Panel Counsel for the Revenue tha....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 932
Refund of CENVAT credit - It is brought to the notice of this Court that Ext.P6 petition dated 16/08/2019 filed by the petitioner was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent in the matter of the claim of the petitioner for grant of refund on the basis of the claim entitled for CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered that R7 may treat a copy of Ext.P6 petition as annexed to this petition as if it’s a petition duly filed before him and then after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the authorized official or counsel if any will render a considered decision thereon, in accordance with the norms and procedure governing the field and in accordance with law without much delay preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (1) TMI 896
Special Audit - Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - allegation of over-utilisation of credit of duty by the assessee in the relevant period - HELD THAT:- The order dated December 06, 2016, passed in the earlier round of writ petition, cannot be construed to mean that the learned Single Judge directed the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata - II to pass the reasoned order, though such Commissioner may have had no authority to pass an order for special audit under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at the relevant point of time. The Revenue admits that at the time of passing the order dated June 06, 2017, the power to pass an order for Special Audit under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was taken away from the Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata -II and the said power was vested with the Commissioner, A....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 803
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of any particular Provision, Act or Rule nor there is any challenge to the legality, validity of any Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular. In such circumstances, the Instruction dated 17th August 2011 referred to in Paragraph-4 of the Instruction dated 22nd August 2019 will have no application. In view of the monetary limit prescribed by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, this appeal is disposed of accordingly.
- 2020 (1) TMI 802
Clandestine removal - corroborative evidences - whether the electronic evidence collected during the course of the investigation by the appellant is properly taken into consideration by the Tribunal for adjudication in the appeal or not? HELD THAT:- In view of the findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal, after considering the material placed before it, no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration out of the impugned order - appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (1) TMI 584
Review of review order - dropping of proceedings against the assessee - HELD THAT:- From the orders, it appears that after the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) to enable the assessee to cross examine the witnesses, the prime witness Mr. Mamraj Singh Negi, Manager, TEPL retracted the statement with regard to receiving only invoices without any goods from BIPL and SMI and the assessee availing credit against those invoices. He further stated that the goods corresponding to the bills were always received and there was no case where the goods covered by the invoices were not received. The AO also verified the fact that every transaction amongst them was a recorded transaction and the payments were made through banking channel i.e. by way of cheque from the ledger and bank statements. The AO found that the noticee had maintain....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 555
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - monitory limit of the subject matter of this appeal is less than Rupees One Crore - instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue dated 22nd August 2019 - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the monitory limit, as prescribed in the instructions, this appeal is not pressed and the same is disposed of accordingly without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
- 2020 (1) TMI 422
Rectification of mistake - power of appellate tribunal to rectify mistake - time limitation - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 9D of the Act of 1944 - HELD THAT:- Section 35C(2) of the Act of 1944 however vests the Appellate Tribunal with the power of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record and amending any order passed by it. No doubt, this power requires to be exercised within six weeks from the date of the order - the certified copy of the order under appeal was furnished to the appellant-assessee on 19-3-2019 and therefore, the six months period reckoned from that date expired on 18-9-2019 and that was the date on which this appeal was preferred. The Tribunal would be well within its powers in entertaining an application under Section 35C(2) of the Act of 1944 for rectification of the order, if warranted o....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 270
Contempt petition - alleged violation/non-compliance of the interim order - Petitioner submits that the Assistant Commissioner is writing letters saying that in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION [2018 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT], the interim order has lapsed and the petitioner should deposit the penalty, but penalty has not yet been realised. HELD THAT:- This contempt petition is disposed of with the observation that the judgment in the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD. AND ANR. VERSUS CENTRAL BURUEAU OF INVESTIVATION [2018 (4) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] is in respect of the interim orders granted by the High Court in criminal and civil cases and not in tax matters. Registry is directed to list the Appeal....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 269
Maintainability of appeal - pre-admission stage - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Taxability - classification as agricultural machinery - HELD THAT:- While according to the assessee, being a manufacturer of small agricultural implements for classification as agricultural machinery, they were exigible to Nil rate of duty, the department had other views and it is this dispute which led to the proceeding which ultimately culminated in the order of ‘the Tribunal’ who have decided in favour of the assessee. There are no reasons to interfere with the opinion of ‘the Tribunal’ - no substantial question arises in the present appeal for inviting admission - appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (1) TMI 195
Clandestine removal - Commissioner had relied upon extensive evidence supported by detailed reasons to come to the conclusion that there was clandestine removal of excisable goods - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal by his impugned order dated 23rd July 2018 set aside that order - We regret to note that the reasons in support of its order are grossly inadequate and most unconvincing. If such detailed order of the Commissioner had to be set aside, the Tribunal ought to have backed its order with cogent reasons. After all, a huge amount of revenue is involved. There is perversity in the order of the Tribunal - Since questions of facts are involved, we do not think it fit to hear out the appeal but to remand it to the Tribunal to hear out the matter afresh - whole matter is remanded to the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order after hearing the parties within six months of communication of this order.
- 2020 (1) TMI 194
Valuation - principal-job-worker relationship - appellant assessee as the principal sent raw materials to the other party to the agreement, the job worker which after completing the necessary job returned the manufactured goods to the appellant - HELD THAT:- Now, the appellant cannot shrug off its responsibility of payment of excise duty by saying that the contract between them and the job worker was on principal to principal basis and since they manufactured the goods they had to pay the excise duty. There is no perversity in the fact finding process of the learned tribunal or in its order - Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (1) TMI 193
Maintainability of appeal - appellant filed an application for rectification which was dismissed. Instead of challenging the order passed by the CESTAT, rejecting the rectification application, the appellant has instead preferred the present appeals questioning the very same order passed by CESTAT, New Delhi - HELD THAT:- While seeking permission to withdraw Central Excise Appeal Nos. 41 & 42 of 2018, the appellant neither sought liberty to file an appeal, later against the order passed by CESTAT in Excise Appeal Nos. 50166 and 51678 of 2016, dated 20-9-2017 nor was any such leave granted. Reliance placed in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A. Tribunal, Gwalior [1986 (11) TMI 377 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the principle underlying rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of adminis....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1217
Rejection of declaration under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - cases involving confiscation and redemption fine - Designated Committee has held that the cases involving confiscation and redemption fine have not been covered under the Scheme and, therefore, the declarations cannot be accepted and no relief can be granted to the petitioners under the Scheme - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of clauses (a) to (h) of section 125 of the Finance Act, it is abundantly clear that persons whose cases involve confiscation and fine in lieu of confiscation are not placed in the categories of persons who are not eligible to make declarations under the Scheme. Thus, persons who have been ordered to pay fine in lieu of confiscation or to whom show cause notices proposing confiscation of goods have been issued, have not been decla....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1167
Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As other Writ Petitions have also been dismissed, the petitioner does have an equally efficacious alternative remedy, the admission is declined with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy available under the law.
- 2019 (12) TMI 1166
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Section 35G read with section 35L(iii)(b) of the Central Excise Act - Extended period of limitation - Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act - suppression of value or not - HELD THAT:- The present appeal filed by the Assessee in this Court is not maintainable before this Court but as per the provisions of Sections 35G and 35L of the Act, the said appeal would lie only before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as the matter pertains to valuation of goods in question. The Assessee on merits of the case may contend that the requirement of affixing MRP would arise only when the actual sales takes place. But that question necessarily depends upon the valuation adopted by the Assessee for the said purpose: whether valuation would be adopted as per CAS-4 Costing Method, which is cost of manufacturing....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1165
Principles of natural justice - Demand of interest - credit availed stands reversed, without utilization - both sides submits that no detailed discussion of the judgments cited by them in the subject case nor has the later amendment of law in this regard been discussed by the learned Tribunal - HELD THAT:- We are inclined to set aside the order of the learned Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to pass a detailed and speaking order, on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (12) TMI 1093
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - subsequent change in law - Levy of penalty - appellant herein had paid the duty before issuance of SCN - whether a subsequent declaration of law through decision of the apex court can be considered as a mistake apparent on the face of the record, enabling a rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Act? HELD THAT:- In a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble apex court it is held that, 'a mistake apparent on the record' must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. The power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. The mistake cannot be such, which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Further, w....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1063
Refund of excise duty - unjust enrichment - allegation that the appellant has not passed on the duty to the buyers, as such is entitled to refund - rejection on the ground that the invoices issued by the appellant between 11.09.2003 to 30.01.2004 clearly show that the Central Excise Duty @ 16% separately was charged from the customers/buyers - Presumption of incidence of duty. Whether the Tribunal was under obligation to consider all the material evidence available before it and while discarding the same, it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to record reasons? HELD THAT:- From the bare perusal of Section 12 (B) of the Act, 1944, the intention of the legislature is crystal clear that it is the duty of the concerned to prove that he has not passed on the excise duty to the buyer. From the material placed, particularly two sets of invoices and....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1061
Finalisation of assessment of petitioner - direction to respondent to finalise the assessment of the petitioner-Industrial Unit as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SUPREME STEELS AND GENERAL MILLS [2001 (10) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] with consequential relief of refund with interest. HELD THAT:- The respondents may pass appropriate order in terms of the above ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of 3 months from the receipt of this order and finalize the pending proceedings in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.