Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC
Citation -
Order by


Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 8641 Records

  • 2017 (10) TMI 747 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Tata International Limited Versus Customs Central Excise Settlement Commission, The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Validity of Application made to Settlement commission - return not filed - Held that - - the petitioner does not have a vested right to compel the first respondent Settlement Commission, to take on file the case for settlement without fulfilling the conditions prescribed under Section 32 E of the act. Record of the proceedings show that no return was filed and in such circumstances, an application for settlement cannot be made in view of the stat....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 702 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus The Union of India & Another

    Grant of new CHA license - application for grant of new custom brokers license rejected on the ground that condition specified in clause (e) of the Regulation 5 is not satisfied - Held that - If the Applicant, who applies for a license has been convicted by a competent Court for the offences provided in any of the said three enactments, the disqualification in clause (d) will be applicable. If a Criminal Proceeding is pending in which the Applica....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 701 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT

    Assam Tubes Limited Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, The Superintendent of Central Excise

    Validity of Section 3A of the Central Excise and Salts Act, 1944 - valuation on the basis of Capacity production - It appears that on account of peak hours load restriction of electricity due to paucity of power supply between 4/5 p.m. to 10 p.m. for industries, there was loss of production in the appellant s industry. The appellant, therefore, wanted to pay excise duty on actual production basis - Held that - Rule 96 ZO and Rule 96 ZP of the Cen....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s Parijat Construction, M/s Giriraj Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

    Refund of service tax which was paid under mistake of law - denial on the ground of time limitation - Section 11 B of the CEA, 1944 - whether limitation prescribed under Section 11 B of the said Act applies to a refund claimed in respect of service tax paid under a mistake of law? - Held that - the issue is no more res-integra - the Division Bench of this Court in Hindustan Cocoa 1994 (6) TMI 18 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY has held that ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 658 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Sams Machines Tools, M/s. Sams Techno Mech

    SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2002 dated 1 March 2002 as amended by the N/N. 8/2003 dated 1 March 2003 - case of Revenue is that the exemption in the Notification could not be availed of by the Respondent as they had used the brand name of another person viz. SAMS Machine Private Limited - Held that - the label affixed on the machines contained the manufacturer i.e. the Respondents own name and has no relation to the words ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 657 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Windals Auto Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in deciding the Appeal preferred by the Appellant on merits in absence of the Appellant or its Advocate especially in the light of the facts pleaded in the Memorandum of Appeal? - Held that - It is true that the Appellate Tribunal could have decided the Appeal in absence of the Appellant. However, the Appellate Tribunal was required to record reasons by applying its mind to the grounds of challenge in the ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 656 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

    CENVAT credit - base oil - it was alleged that the appellant had availed of cenvat credit on duty of full quantity of base oil as shown in the invoice/bill but the scrutiny of documents shows that in fact the appellant has received base oil of a shorter quantity - the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court was that the submissions have not been correctly recorded by the Appellate Tribunal. If that be so, the appella....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 655 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane Versus M/s. Monomer Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd.

    Rejection of Registration application - Section 6 of the CEA, 1944 - liability of predecessor - Held that - the show cause notice issued to the predecessor of the Respondent is pending adjudication and there was no enforceable demand against the predecessor of the Respondent - the issue of alleged liability of the predecessor of the Respondent to pay demand was completely irrelevant for the consideration of Application made by the Respondent unde....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    The Principal Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Versus Bhavani Ceramic Pvt Ltd.

    Whether the Tribunal is correct in law when the significant document submitted by the assessee corroborated by the conformational statements of the assessee are overlooked and ignored? - Held that - It can be seen that the entire issue is based on appreciation of evidence of record and essentially one of facts. No question of law arises - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 441 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Data Field India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Datafield India Ltd.) , Madhumati Kannan, Coimbatore Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Issuance of Writ of prohibition - 100 EOU - finished products produced in a 100 EOU, sold in India as the DTA sales - N/N. 2/95-CE dated 04.1.1995, as amended - it is submitted that the finished products produced in a 100 EOU, when sold in India as the DTA sales, the duty amount payable is 50 of the customs duty including other duties like SCD and ACD respectively. The petitioner is stated to have paid a total sum of ₹ 74,35,252/- in terms ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 440 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Service Tax Versus M/s. Shree Datta Shetkari SSK Ltd. And The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Versus M/s. Vasantdada Shetkari SSK Ltd.

    Violation of import conditions - Levy of Excise duty on Sugar - Export Certificate issued by Export Agency - Rule 5 of the Sugar Export Promotion Rules, 1973 - Held that - appeals are admitted to decided the question of law........ + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 331 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Commissioner, CGST And C. Ex Versus Adani Gas Pvt. Ltd.

    Period of limitation - recovery of unpaid dues of excise - mandatory penalty u/s 11AC of the CEA, 1944 read with rule 15(2) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - Extended period of limitation for recovery of duty of excise not paid, not levied or short paid or short levied or erroneously refunded would be available to the department only if such event was by reason of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, suppression of facts or contravention of any o....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 283 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Aafloat Textiles India Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Restoration of appeal - appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of the pre-deposit order - Held that - the Appellants have not made any effort to attend the hearings before the Appellate Tribunal and / or place the recommendation of the BIFR for winding up of the Appellants Company on 15th November 2006 before the Appellate Tribunal when the stay application came up for hearing on 12th January 2007 - It appears that the Appellants were only inter....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 82 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Assistant Commissioner of central Goods And Service Tax, Division - VIII (VEJALPUR) Versus Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited

    Penalty - input credit on parts used for construction of fixed and semifixed structures - Held that - When the assessee bonafide carrying a belief which cannot be stated to be wholly untenable that cenvat credit on such inputs was available, claimed the same with full knowledge of the department, merely because eventually such credit was disallowed, would not give rise to penalty proceedings - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 81 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Maruti Travel Agency Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

    Additional ground incorporated in appeal - Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal could have gone into the merits of the additional grounds sought to be incorporated in Appeal, while deciding the application made by the appellant under Rule 10 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982? - Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the said Rules - Held that - On conjoint reading of SubRule (1) of Rule....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 80 - KERALA HIGH COURT

    The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs And Service

    Restoration of Appeal - Condonation of delay of 2659 days in filing appeal - According to the appellant, it was unaware of the judgment and it was therefore, that the delay has occurred - Held that - The assertion of the appellant that it was unaware of the judgment of the Apex Court has not been found to be untrue. Similarly, the Tribunal has also not found untrue the claim of the appellant that the relevant files were misplaced - considering th....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Limited Versus The Union of India

    Job-work - cess on textiles and textile machinery manufactured in India - section 5A of the Textile Committee Act, 1963 - petitioner failed to provide details of job-work - whether the petitioners are owners of Garments or manufacturer of Garments? - Held that - there shall be levied and collected a cess for the purposes of the TC Act, a duty of excise on all textiles and on all textile machinery manufactured in India. Sub-section (3) of section ....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s. Sri Chamundeswari Sugars Limited Versus Union of India (Ministry of Finance) Department of RevenueCentral Board of Excise & Customs, The Commissioner of Central Excise, The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Central Excise

    Permission to withdraw the petition - non leviability of Excise Duty on Press-Mud which emerges as a waste or as a by-product during the course of manufacture of Sugar - Held that - the petitioner assessee Company filed its objections in pursuance of the impugned Notice before the concerned Authority - an adjudication order in pursuance of the said Show Cause Notice has already been passed and an Appeal against that order is pending before the Ap....... + More

  • 2017 (10) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. RKKR Steels Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Superintendent of Central Excise,

    Validity of and applicability of Rule 96 ZP (3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 3 of the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Held that - when the petitioner is before the Tribunal, which is the last forum for deciding questions of fact, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to canvas all points in the pending appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the question....... + More


    Commr. of Customs, CEST, Hyderabad Versus M/s Hyundai Motor India Engg. [P] Ltd.

    100 EOU - Refund of unutilised CENVAT credit - time limitation - the CESTAT Bangalore, relying on the judgment in Eaton s case 2010 (12) TMI 71 - CESTAT, MUMBAI , held that the relevant date for filing the refund application under Sec.11B of the Excise Act would be the date of receipt of consideration for service rendered and not the date when the services were provided. This finding of the CESTAT is challenged in the appeals on the main plank of....... + More

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  

|| 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 ||

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

Go to Mobile Version