Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 9915 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 (7) TMI 117
  
  Sabka Vishwas (Legaly Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - validity and legality of the rejection of the petitioner's scheme - Last date for making payment arrived - HELD THAT:- It would not be appropriate for us to confirm the quantification of balance final estimated amount payable under the scheme at ₹ 55,56,045.00, especially when it is the petitioner's case that respondent No. 3 Committee has failed to consider the petitioner's case in the light of the interpretation and application of the above provisions and has not heard the petitioner before confirming the balance final demand. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the amount of ₹ 55,56,045.00 with the revenue within a period of one week from today. The order dated 23.6.2020 records the last date for....... + More

---

• 2020 (6) TMI 639
  
  De-freezing of petitioner's Bank Savings Account - after waiting for over three months, the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that the respondent has failed to take appropriate action of defreezing its Saving Bank Account and releasing its lien on the LIC policy in question - HELD THAT:- Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and informs this Court that the file of the petitioner has been put up to the Competent Authority and the same is under process. However, he is unable to inform this Court as to when was the file put up before the Competent Authority and how much more time would it take to defreeze the petitioner's Saving Bank account and release the lien on its LIC policy particularly when more than three months have already expired after issuance of the Discharge Certificat....... + More

---

• 2020 (6) TMI 553
  
  Pending appeal or not - HELD THAT:- Since, it is submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that service has already been effected upon the respondents, the respondents are at liberty to file affidavit-in-opposition within a period of three weeks from date, affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Matter to appear in the monthly list for the month of August, 2020 under the heading ‘for hearing’. In the meantime without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties, the petitioner shall deposit a sum of ₹ 15 lakhs with the learned Registrar General of this Court by a bank draft within 15 (fifteen) days from date.

---

• 2020 (5) TMI 610
  
  Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - applicability of notification No.13/2008-CE dated 01.03.2008 amending the notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.05.1995 - Section 35G or 35L of the Central Excise Act? - HELD THAT:- A conjoint reading of Section 35G and 35L, it could be seen that an appeal would lie to this Court against every order passed in an appeal by the appellate tribunal, if the case involves a substantial question of law. However, exception to this general rule is that an appeal would lie before the Hon’ble Apex Court and not before this Court against an order relating, amongst other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment. The aforesaid authoritative principles by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case o....... + More

---

• 2020 (5) TMI 505
  
  Monetary amount involved in the appeal - prosecution of appeal - Circular bearing No.F.No390/Misc/163/2010-JC dated 17.08.2011 - whether such appeal filed by the revenue against order dated 08.08.2018, which involved the tax component of ₹ 1,81,754/- could not have been prosecuted or not? HELD THAT:- By Circular dated 17th August 2011 referred herein, monetary limit fixed for the Appellate Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal had been restricted to ₹ 5 lac and above. The said monetary limit came to be enhanced upto ₹ 10 lac by Circular dated 17th December 2015. The Central Board of Excise & Customs by its extent Instruction F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 1st January 2016 has clarified that Circular dated 17th December 2015, whereunder monetary limits for Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and Supreme Court entertaining t....... + More

---

• 2020 (5) TMI 392
  
  Remand of the case - Coordinate Bench of this Court [in which Dr.Vineet Kothari, J. was one of the Member] in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, COIMBATORE. VERSUS PRICOL LIMITED, CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH CHENNAI [2019 (8) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] had also upheld the remand of the matter to the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- Since the matter already stands remanded back to the First Appellate Authority by the order of the learned Tribunal, we are not inclined to make any observations on the merits of the case and the parties are directed to raise their rival contentions before the First Appellate Authority - the First Appellate Authority will decide the case in accordance with law - Appeal disposed off.

---

• 2020 (5) TMI 62
  
  Maintainability of appeal - non-prosecution of the case - HELD THAT:- Office objections to be removed within a period of two weeks, failing which, the concerned matter shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

---

• 2020 (5) TMI 61
  
  Stay of impugned order during pendency of the appeal - impleadment as a respondent - SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - HELD THAT:- The court is of the view that a prima facie case has been made out for grant of exparte interim relief. Issue Notice, returnable on 29th January, 2020 - By way of ad-interim relief, the operation of the impugned order M/S JOLLY ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES AND NILESH V SHAH VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. VADODARA-II [2019 (10) TMI 95 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is hereby stayed.

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 834
  
  Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Compounding of duty under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is dismissed as withdrawn - Application allowed.

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 807
  
  Validity of changes brought in Rule 6(3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the adjudicating authority as well as the Tribunal failed to appreciate the significant change brought in Rule 6(3) (i) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 w.e.f. 1.3.2008 vide Notification No.10/2008 C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.3.2008 - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority and the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the significant change brought in Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, w.e.f. 1.3.2008 vide Notification No.10/2008 C.E.(N.T.) dated 1.3.2008 which as noticed in the OIO with reference to sale of goods, was deleted and in its place the emphasis was shifted to the payment of an amount equal to 10% of the 'value' of exempted goods - In the absence of any findings to this effect that the provisions pre....... + More

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 696
  
  Rectification of mistake - typographical error - HELD THAT:- On page no.2 in paragraph No.4 the word ‘Appellant’ be substituted by the word ‘Revenue’. The necessary correction be carried out and corrected order be uploaded accordingly.

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 639
  
  CENVAT Credit - inputs and input services used in the power plant - electricity supplied to the different units, beyond factory premises - Whether, the CESTAT was justified in not relying the case of SINTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2013 (6) TMI 178 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] and M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd versus CCE, Ahmedabad, [2009 (8) TMI 96 - SC ORDER], wherein the facts are similar to the present case? HELD THAT:- The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee relied upon its own order dated 09.04.2015 passed in the case of the very same assessee but Revenue has not thought fit to challenge the order passed by the Tribunal dated 09.04.2015 referred to in Paragraph No.4 of the impugned order. Well....... + More

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 502
  
  Clandestine removal - production capacity of machines - scope of remand proceedings - the reasonings arrived at by the Commissioner did not find favour with the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the matter came to be remitted - Tribunal completely overlooked the fact that in the first round of the litigation, the remand was on the very same issue and, therefore, there was no question of taking the view that it would be a futile exercise. Whether the Tribunal committed any error in passing the impugned order? Held that:- It is expected of the Department to know the position of law. When the position of law is abundantly clear that such examination of the machine can be undertaken at some other place, the Department should have agreed to do so. Having not done so, the Department now cannot take shelter of the order passed by the Tribunal, wh....... + More

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 342
  
  Refund of Central Excise duty - benefit of N/N. 108/95, dated 28.08.1995 - exemption from excise duty to the goods supplied to UN or an International Organization subject to certain conditions - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal rightly found that merely because the notification is termed as exemption notification, it does not bar any person who may have wrongly paid duty to seek refund. As regards plea of bar of jurisdiction and incompetent authority, the Tribunal found that firstly assessee moved an application to the Director General of Foreign Trade which was a wrong Forum to seek this refund but it did show that assessee was not acquiescent about its claim. Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal found that alongwith the refund application, the respondent- assessee had appended a certificat....... + More

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 341
  
  Maintainability of appeal - appeal; to High Court - issue relates to taxability or excisability of goods - primary objection taken by the Assessee is that this case would not be covered under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 but under Section 35L of the Act as the basic question for determination relates to taxability or excisability of goods - HELD THAT:- From Section 35L(1) (b) of the Act it is evident that the appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on the question in relation to rate of duty of excise or value of goods. Sub-Section(2) of Section 35L of the Act clarifies that the rate of duty shall include the determination of taxability or excisability of goods. In the present case, the claim of the Assessee was that the activity carried out by it was manufacture and hence was covered under exemption notifications. The issue ....... + More

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 180
  
  Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - rebate claim - section 35-G, being section 35-G(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of the aforesaid provision of law reveals that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal other than the exceptions as specified in section 35-G (1) only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. A bare perusal of the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2019, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, Regional Bench - Court No.1, does not reveal that the case involves any substantial question of law - there are no merit in the instant appeal - appeal dismissed.

---

• 2020 (4) TMI 179
  
  Levy of NCCD - POY produced and captively consumed within the factory of production by the Petitioner - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in the case of BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2019 (3) TMI 1427 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Once the excise duty is exempted, NCCD, levied as an excise duty cannot partake a different character and, thus, would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The ratio of the Supreme Court, when stated to govern the case and the petition was filed prior to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court and considering the contentions raised in the petition, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondent - Petition allowed.

---

• 2020 (3) TMI 1207
  
  Extended period of limitation - demand of Central Excise Duty including Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess and also imposing interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that since it has been clearly mentioned in para-12.2 of the circular dated 16.02.2018 issued by the Department of Revenue that the extended period would not be available to raise the demand, which has also been perused by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the availability of alternative remedy may not debar the petitioner from approaching this Court - Accordingly, till the next returnable date the impugned order dated 26.03.2018 may not be given effect to. List the matter after 3 (three) weeks.

---

• 2020 (3) TMI 1206
  
  CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation of goods (GTA Services) - place of removal - period from 2009-­10 to 2013-14 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal relying upon the Board Circular No.1065/2018­CX dated 8th June 2018 as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, ROHTAK [2014 (10) TMI 679 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT], has held that the Appellants are eligible for the cenvat credit of service tax paid on outward freight. No question of law much less of any substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - Appeal dismissed.

---

• 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

---