|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9885 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 (3) TMI 1155
Maintainability of appeal - challenge on the ground that the question involved in the appeal had a direct bearing on the rate of duty and value of goods for the purposes of assessment - error apparent on the face of record or not - section 35G read with section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the applicant has invoked the review jurisdiction of this court on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court in MEERA BHANJA VERSUS NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY [1994 (11) TMI 440 - SUPREME COURT] has held that an error apparent on the face of the record must be an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. It may be pertinent to note that the l....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1097
Maintainability of petition - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Today, Mr. Jorgay Namka, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not in a position to pay the requisite amount in terms of Section 35F of the Act - If that be the position, we have no alternative but to dismiss the IA. Application dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1053
CENVAT Credit - goods which were finally cleared were exempted - benefit of Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Whether the benefit of rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules is available to the assessee, irrespective of his conduct and malafide intention to avail cenvat credit on the inputs used in manufacturing of exempted goods? HELD THAT:- There is no dispute raised on the fact that till 20.8.2012, the nature of pipes manufactured was not determined as exempt because GMADA was not granted exemption certificate. The respondents were not maintaining separate books of account. The goods cleared were on payment/adjustment of duty under Rule 6(3) and also dutiable goods albeit in small ratio. The finding recorded by the Tribunal that dutiable goods were cleared on 5.11.2012 has not been challenged - The contentions raised by learned counse....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1001
Extension of time for completion of arbitration proceedings and rendering of the arbitral award - Section 29A(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- Issue notice. Keeping in view the fact that much time and labour has already been invested in the proceedings, the time for completion of arbitration proceedings and rendering of award is extended till 30.09.2020 reckoned from 18.08.2019 - petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1000
Service of order - principal argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that at no point of time, he received the Order-in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has held that it is fact on record that the adjudication order was sent to the appellant through registered post on 19.05.2015 and the same was delivered at the premises of the appellant on 25.05.2015. In that circumstance, the date of received of adjudication order is 25.05.2015. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the appellant is with a delay of almost 15 months therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly dismissed the appeal as time-barred. In view of the aforesaid findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal, it is difficult for us to take the view that the questions as proposed are substantial questions of law falling for the consideration of this Court. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 999
Refund of Excise duty - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- Mr. Walve and Mr. Ochani, appearing for the respondents, very fairly state on instructions of Mr. Bhanu Jain, Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, that the petitioner’s grievance in the present facts is justified. This as the impugned order is contrary to and in defiance of the orders of the Tribunal which have attained finality. The impugned order dated 30th April, 2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, is quashed and set aside.
- 2020 (3) TMI 911
Condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal - HELD THAT:- The applicant has assigned sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 412 days. The application is accordingly allowed. Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2018 is ordered to be restored to its original file. Tax Appeal shall now be notified before the appropriate Court taking up such matters.
- 2020 (3) TMI 901
Clandestine removal - copper wires - demand based on various statements - retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- There existed no evidence of threat or coercion on the proprietor of the Appellant firm in recording of the statement of 8th November 2011.Since, no cogent ground for the same has been adduced before us to buttress the same, a mere allegation of the same at this same is ill-conceived. Moreover, the proprietor in the subsequent statements has reiterated the same with minor retractions, and thus it would be far-fetched to hold that there had been gross duress on the proprietor of the Appellant at every instance of tendering his statements on various dates. The counsel of Appellant before the appropriate forum, himself had agreed to proceed with the case without waiting further for cross examination of Panchas, and thus, once the ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 843
Valuation - tin coils of width above 600 mm seized from the godown - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal had not given any reason and had not considered the non-seizure, however made as if there was a seizure. When the order-in-original was challenged based on certain vital facts, the Tribunal, being the fact finding authority, ought to have given reasons for non-interference of the order-in-original. It is clear that the order of Tribunal is certainly a non-speaking order and the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant. Merely reproduction of comments from the show cause notice or order-in-original is not sufficient for a Tribunal to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. Each and every ground raised should be sufficiently discussed by the Tribunal while passing any order, that too, upon recording th....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 659
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground that “the concerned investigative authority has submitted that the amount has neither been quantified nor communicated to the assessee” - Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27th August, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Since in the present case, the petitioner has raised a plea that it was eligible to file an application despite the amount having been neither quantified nor communicated to the assessee by the Department till 30th June, 2019, this Court is of the view that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner before passing any adverse order. The impugned communications dated 26th November, 2019 and 19th December, 2019 are set aside and the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the petitioner’s application after giving an oppo....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 658
Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - rejection on the ground that “the concerned investigative authority has submitted that the amount has neither been quantified nor communicated to the assessee” - Circular No.1071/4/2019-CX.8 dated 27th August, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Since in the present case, the petitioner has raised a plea that it was eligible to file an application despite the amount having been neither quantified nor communicated to the assessee by the Department till 30th June, 2019, this Court is of the view that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner before passing any adverse order. The impugned communications dated 26th November, 2019 and 19th December, 2019 are set aside and the respondent no.1 is directed to decide the petitioner’s application after giving an oppo....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 641
Imposition of penalty u/r 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - issue was not free from doubts, when the assessee vide their letter dated 8.7.2005 claimed to have stopped availing Cenvat Credit after insertion of Explanation III in sub-rule6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 16.5.2005 - HELD THAT:- The questions proposed do not arise for consideration. Appeal disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 585
Interest on refunds - Relevant date for Grant of interest - applicant seeks interest from the date the respective amounts were deposited with the respondents till the date of actual refund of the deposit - HELD THAT:- This court has held that since refund is not in the nature of duty under the Central Excise Act, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory interest under section 11BB of that Act. It has further been held that in the absence of any statutory provision entitling the petitioner to interest, a mandamus cannot be issued to the revenue to pay interest. It may be noted that while the petitioner in the relief paragraph has prayed for interest at the rate of 18% per annum, at the time of hearing of the petition, no submissions had been made in this regard. Nonetheless, since in the reliefs prayed for a prayer for grant of interest....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 456
Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - CENVAT credit - activity amounting to manufacture or not - activity of re-packing which is not packing in “unit containers” - activity of re-labeling with the name and without any hologram or marking while the re-labeling being done only for the logistics purpose by the assessee - treatment to the already marketable products by the assessee would amount to manufacture - filing of a Return under Rule 12 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - disclosure of full details. Whether the present appeals which raises a question of excisability itself or not, will be appealable before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or not? HELD THAT:- The question whether the activity carried out by the Assessee amounts to "deemed manufacture" or not is the basic question involved in the present appeals........ + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 455
Refund of Pre-deposit - release of Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner - Clandestine removal - Counsel for the petitioner states that consequent upon the above order, the petitioner made an application dated 18.02.2019 demanding the refund of the amount as also an application seeking release of the bank guarantee. It is pointed-out that inspite of the applications, till date no action has been taken by the respondent, either rejecting or allowing the applications. HELD THAT:- ssue notice returnable 15.05.2020 - List before the Regular Bench on 15th May 2020.
- 2020 (3) TMI 374
Rejection of Rebate claim - rejection on the ground of time limitation - rejection on the omission of petitioners to submit original documents amounting to an irregularity of procedure provided in Central Excise Rules, 2002 - sections 35C and 35EE of CEA - HELD THAT:- Dictionary meaning of word ‘annul’ is given as, to declare invalid. Court has perused impugned order. It is clear Central Government sat in appeal to confirm order in original, on setting aside appellate order. Inserted by amendment sub-section (1A) in section 35EE clearly requires the Commissioner to apply for revision. Revision is not appeal. Petition allowed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 312
Reversing of lapsed cenvat credit - Rule 11(3) of CCR, 2004 - Benefit of Notification dated 9 July 2004 availed and balance of CENVAT Credit reversed - Appellant put the Respondent to the notice in respect of their failure to reverse the CENVAT Credit of ₹ 2,86,83,157/- in terms of Rule 11(3). The contention of the Appellant is that Rule 11(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 envisaged lapsing of remaining CENVAT Credit and that being the position it could not have been utilized by the Respondent and their action of doing so has resulted on a tax liability which is rightly to be enforced through the show cause notice. HELD THAT:- The bare perusal of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 11 shows that stipulation of lapsing is included in Clause (ii) and not in Clause (i). These two clauses are separated by hyphen and use of the word ‘or’....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 81
CENVAT credit - inputs used in the provision of exempted goods as well as traded goods - non-maintenance of separate account as required under Rule 6(2) of the CCR - option available under Rule 6(3) of the CCR not followed - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD-II VERSUS MAIZE PRODUCTS [2008 (8) TMI 365 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the entire controversy has been decided by the Tribunal by merely remitting the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to re-determine the credit in accordance with law. If any reversal has been made by the respondent-assessee, the same is subject to verification and adjustment if ultimately any further amount is found reversible. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1200
Process amounting to manufacture or not - repacking of various excisable goods - goods were received in bulk and they were packed in individual bottles with hologram and barcodes - value addition taking place or not - HELD THAT:- Facts of the case makes it very clear that the assessee / respondent before this Court were engaged in trading and telemarketing of various goods and also in selling medicines manufactured by M/s. Davo Laboratories and Balchem Laboratories through VPP. They were also giving advertisement on television and other media. The most important aspect of the case is that the assessee/ respondent before this Court received the medicines duly duty paid from the manufacturers in a packed form mentioning therein the retail price. The undisputed facts also reveal that after receiving bottles of medicines in the packets, the a....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1166
Refund of CENVAT credit - rejection on the ground of limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant/Assessee has submitted that the limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act does not apply when instead of claiming the refund in cash, the Assessee merely claims the restoration of the CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/S KRISHNAV ENGINEERING LTD. VERSUS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER [2015 (12) TMI 234 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] held in para 7 that where it is not a case of refund of duty but a case of reversal of an entry in the books relating to CENVAT credit, the limitation under Section 11B of the Act will not apply. The learned Tribunal has erred in applying the limitation of the Section 11B of the Act in the present case, where the....... + More
........
|
