|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 10196 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.
- 2021 (10) TMI 586 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund - Applicability of doctrine of unjust enrichment - provisional assessments - applicability of N/N. 45/99 CE dated 25.06.1999 - refund of duty governed by the provisions contained in proviso [d] & [e] of Section 11B [2] of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - presumption contained in Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies or not in case of Provisional Assessments also - HELD THAT:- Rule 9B[5] has to be read with the proviso which provides that if an assessee is entitled to refund, such refund shall not be made to him except in accordance with the procedure established under Subsection [2] of Section 11B of the Act as inserted with effect from 25.07.1999. Rule 7[6] read with the proviso provides that the duty of excise paid by the manufacturer, if he had not passed an incidence of such duty to any other person be pa....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 484 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Recovery of refunded earlier, deposited by each of the petitioners as Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess - erroneous refund or not - case of the petitioners (manufacturers) was that Education Cess and Higher Education Cess was part of excise duty and since they have been exempted from excise duty they are also liable to be exempted from paying Education Cess and Higher Education Cess and as excise duty has been returned to them, the amount paid by them as Education Cess and Higher Education Cess is also liable to be returned to them. HELD THAT:- What amounts to be paid erroneously has been explained by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh -Vs- Superintendent of Taxes & Ors. [1989 (7) TMI 317 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]. Though it relates to the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, but the principle ....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 384 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Evasion of duty or not - Process amounting to manufacture or not - goods specified in third Schedule involving packing and re-packing etc - scope of "Manufacturer" as contained in Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Whether the process undertaken by the revision petitioners resulted into emergency of manufactured goods will depend upon the test laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SOUTH BIHAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1968 (2) TMI 36 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. [1962 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] - As to the interpretation of the said provision with the guidelines as prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court can be gone into only at the time of trial and hence, it is always open to the revision petitioners/acc....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 333 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - alleged bogus, fake and fabricated invoices - HELD THAT:- The impugned judgment and order, being a common one, the main issues and all aspects of the challenge to the common judgment and order of the Tribunal, have already been dealt in Central Excise Appeal No. 1 of 2020 by this Court and the entire proceedings being common, the judgment rendered therein will squarely apply ‘in toto’ in respect of the instant Appeal. Appeal disposed off.
- 2021 (10) TMI 320 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Area Based exemption - substantial exemption - N/N. 1/2010 dated 06.02.2010 - HELD THAT:- It appears that the petitioner has availed the Budgetary Support Scheme, which is now sought to be recovered by way of a Demand Notice dated 28.11.2019. The reason behind issuing the Demand Notice is stated to be a misunderstanding by the official respondents that the petitioner-unit was entitled to avail the benefits for a period of 10 years commencing from 2009 which period would end in 2019. Notice - List again on 18.11.2021.
- 2021 (10) TMI 317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - CENVAT Credit - input services - transportation charges incurred by the manufacturer for clearance of final product from place of removal, up to 01.04.2008 - varying interpretation of the term 'ínput service' in various decisions - HELD THAT:- The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted a letter to the Registry stating that this appeal may be permitted to be withdrawn on the ground of Low Tax Effect, as per the monetary limits fixed by the National Litigation Policy. The letter circulated by the learned Senior Standing Counsel is placed on the record and this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the Substantial Questions of law are left open.
- 2021 (10) TMI 134 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Attachment of properties - Area Based exemptions - validity and vires of N/N. 17/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and No.31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 - request for fixation of a special rate for the value addition on the manufactured goods for the financial year 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 - applications of the petitioner were not entertained and the department invoked the attachment of some properties of the petitioner. Whether under the N/N. 32/99-CE dated 18.07.1999 as amended and the N/N. 31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 the manufacturers are entitled to have an option not to avail the rates specified in the tables contained in the notifications and whether they have a legal right to request the authorities for fixation of a special rate as per the actual value additions to the manufactured goods? HELD THAT:- The dominant purpose of the two notificatio....... + More
- 2021 (10) TMI 128 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Recovery of erroneous refund / irregular Cenvat credit availed - Demand of duty with interest - allegation of misuse of Area based exemption - benefit of N/N. 32/99-CE, dated 8th July, 1999 - HELD THAT:- It is palpably evident, on the face of the record itself, that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. A bare reading of section 11A of the Act (as amended), clearly shows that the stipulation under this provision, can be exercised only if certain conditions precedent are present, as spelt out in section 11A, itself. On examination of provision of section 11A of Central Excise Act, it clearly shows that the case at hand, is not one concerning conditions as given in section11A, but the issue concerns refunds made purportedly under the entitlements claimed by the respondent under the exemption notification, which, t....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1277 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rule 2001 / Central Excise Rules 2002 read with Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules 1944 - no evidence or partly relevant or partly irrelevant evidence - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE THANE - II COMMISSIONERATE, MUMBAI VERSUS KAMAL SINGHANIA, DIRECTOR OF M/S. USHA FASHIONS PVT. LTD. M/S. USHA FASHIONS PVT. LTD., M/S. S.P. THAKKAR TRANSPORT COMPANY, [2021 (9) TMI 1107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and the answer is given in affirmative. Appeal dismissed.
- 2021 (9) TMI 1232 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery of Interest and penalty - Rrejection of SVLDRS-1 - unquatified "amount in arrears" - no interest or penalty came to be adjudicated before introduction of the Scheme. Infact, no adjudication notice was issued in that regard - HELD THAT:- Once a valid settlement is reached, then, by way of a consequence provided under Section 129(1)(a) of the Scheme no interest or penalty liability may exist. Consequently, for the purposes of Sections 121(1)(c), 123(e), 124(1)(c) and 125(1)(f) also, the “amount in arrears” would be referable only to duty liability outstanding and not to interest or penalty liability, where only that liability may exist. If no amount of the Central Excise duty or Service Tax was due on the date of filing the declaration on SVLDRS-1, the fact that interest or penalty alone may have been claimed ....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1107 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - shortage and excesses of stock - sufficient evidence to establish the clandestine removal or not - excess of the recorded balance in RG1 register - cross-examination of witnesses - Penalty u/r 26 of CER - HELD THAT:- The Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Kolkata-II [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] held that not allowing a party to cross examine witnesses of the Adjudicating Authority whose statement was the basis of the show cause notice to demand duty is a serious flaw in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. It is noted that the Commissioner refused permission to cross examine Thakkar notwithstanding the request made by respondent nos.1 and 2. The permission to cross examine Thakker should have been granted mainly in view of the fact that appellant....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
100% EOU - central excise duty arrived on the depreciated value of the indigenously procured capital goods - section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - fulfillment of export obligation to a higher limit or not - payment of duty already compensated by fixing export obligation demand of duty again - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the assessee did not contest the dutiability of the indigenously procured capital goods on merit or on the quantum. Therefore, their plea was that based on the letter of the Assistant Commissioner dated 18.05.2006 central excise duty liability stood discharged. Unfortunately the assessee who has been registered under the provisions of the Central Excise Act has failed to take note of rudimentary legal principles. If the assessee claims that he has discharged the duty liability, the same should be established in th....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 1105 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of CER - Validity of summon order and non-bailable order - evasion of Central Excise Duty - case of the department is entirely based upon statements obtained under official pressure and duress - cross-examination of various persons whose statements are being relied upon - HELD THAT:- Notice on behalf of opposite party-1 has been accepted by learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.2. List /put up this case as fresh in the week commencing 22.11.2021.
- 2021 (9) TMI 1046 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Area Based exemption - Requirement to refund 50% of amount that was refunded - exemption that was made available to the petitioner under the North Eastern Industrial Policy - validity and vires of N/N. 17/2008-CE dated 27.03.2008 and No.31/2008-CE dated 10.06.2008 - fixation of a special rate for the value addition on the manufactured goods - principle of constructive res-judicata - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the requirement of requesting for fixation of a special rate in respect of the value addition to the manufactured goods had arisen only after the final judgment of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER ETC. ETC. VERSUS M/S V.V.F LIMITED & ANOTHER ETC. ETC. [2020 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT], inasmuch, as long as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court and the interim....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 942 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking permission for withdrawal of appeal - benefit of the Settlement Scheme already availed - CENVAT Credit - input service - outward transportation of goods delivered at the doorsteps of the buyers - equating the definition of “input” under section 2(k) and input services under section 2(l) especially when the expressions “clearance of final products from the place the removal” is conspicuous by its absence under the definition of 'input' - scope of various expressions - interpretation of statute - HELD THAT:- The appellant is permitted to withdraw this Appeal, as they have availed the benefit of the Settlement Scheme. The Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn and the substantial questions of law are left open.
- 2021 (9) TMI 868 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking to Issuance of directions to re-dispose the application for settlement filed by the petitioner - transparency in the matter of conducting an investigation by the Department Officials or not - grievance of the petitioner is that the two seized hard disks are not produced before the Settlement Commission for investigation - present writ petition is the second writ petition filed by the petitioner-Company - Section 32-E of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- For entertaining an application under Section 32-E of the Act, the application must contain full and true disclosure of duty liability, which had not been disclosed before the Central Excise officer having jurisdiction. Secondly, sub-section (1) of Section 32-L of the Act contemplates that any person who made an application for settlement under Section 32-E has not cooperated wi....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 825 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT
Refund of Excise duty in cash - fixing special rate of valued addition in terms of notification dated 14.11.2002 - exemption of goods cleared from units located in specified areas from the duty equivalent to the amounts of duty paid by the manufacturer - HELD THAT:- This petition is disposed off with the direction to the respondent No.3, Assistant Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Division, Jammu to consider the applications of the petitioner for fixation of a special rate in terms of the notifications referred in accordance with law most expeditiously without insisting for the time of filing of the applications in the light of the judgment of the Guahati High Court if possible within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. In the meantime, no final order shall be passed in response to th....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 786 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - adjudicating authority has relied on the report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRC) to reject the petitioner's explanation - HELD THAT:- The report of the CRCL was first confronted to the petitioner on 20.10.2020 and not earlier. Therefore, in the first place adequate opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to object to that report. In absence of any discussion as to the objection thus raised by the petitioner, in the order impugned, and further in view of the further assertion made by the petitioner, the complete copy of the report of the CRCL dated 3.6.2020/13.7.2020 had not been supplied to the petitioner, it is found that the principle of natural justice has been violated, inasmuch as neither the petitioner was confronted with the adverse material within time as to all....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 668 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Area based exemption - North East Industrial Investment Promotion Policy, 2007 - vires of notifications dated 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008 - contention is that the application of the petitioner for fixing of the special rate which was made on 13.06.2021, has not yet been given a final consideration by the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati - HELD THAT:- Considering the limited grievance raised, this writ petition is disposed off directing the Principal Commissioner of GST, Guwahati to pass a reasoned order on the application of the petitioner dated 13.06.2021 requesting for fixation of a special rate. By requiring the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati to pass an order it is meant that the Principal Commissioner, GST may pass any reasoned order as may be advisable under the law by either accepting or rejecting the request made by the petitioner. In doing so, the Principal Commissioner, GST, Guwahati may pass any order as deemed appropriate under the law. Petition disposed off.
- 2021 (9) TMI 655 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Recovery of rebate claims already sanctioned - scrap generated in the manufacture of the hand tools - removal of such waste on payment of duty as if such waste is manufactured or processed in the factory of the manufacturer or processor - whether such scrap was liable to payment of duty on its clearance - denial of rebate on the ground of non-fulfillment of paragraph 4(c) of the notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004 - HELD THAT:- A clear reading of paragraph 4 to become applicable the conditions sine quo non was the material as such or at partially processed stage had to be moved outside the factory and only and only then paragraph 4 and its sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would become applicable. Once there is no finding that the material or partially processed goods were moved outside the factory, there will be no applicabilit....... + More
........
|
