Tax Management India. Com
                            Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals SMS News Articles Highlights
        Home        
 
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 9154 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.


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1269

    Non-Compliance of Pre-deposit - time limitation - appeal dismissed on the reason that the required pre-deposit was made belatedly after a period of 7 months from the date of filing of the appeal - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Whether the appeal presented within time can be rejected on the ground that pre-deposit was made belatedly? - Held that - The issue has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in MR. RAM....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1268

    Area Based Exemption - substantial expansion - N/N. 33/99-CE dated 8.7.1999 - Held that - It is true that no one appeared on behalf of the appellants on the date when the case was called for hearing but the fact remains having regard to the nature of....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1203

    Maintainability of appeal - Condonation of 11 days delay in filing the appeal - Held that - In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Eon Hinjewadi Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 2018 (9) TMI 665 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT it was held that the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain appeals under Section 35G of the Act is determined by the order passed by the Tribunal and not on the basis of the question framed by the appellant. - This Court does not h....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1202

    Time Limitation - Whether the demand of duty under the extended proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 and consequential penalties under Section 11AC of the Act on the assessee and under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rule 1944 and on the supplier M/s.Bush Boake Allen India Limited as well as demand of appropriate interest under Section 11ab of the Act, is barred by limitation? - Held that - There is no infirmity in the order p....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1201

    CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - photocopies of invoices - original documents was destroyed due to flood - Held that - The second round of proceedings before the Commissioner, were circumscribed by the directions given in that order dated 3rd May, 2010 for denovo adjudication by the Tribunal. The contention urged by Mr. Dharmadhikari before us, cannot assist the Appellant in the present facts as these were all issues which were a subject m....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1135

    CENVAT Credit - input services - Construction services - Held that - The conclusion of the Tribunal is well founded, as construction service is an eligible service for credit for providing output service of renting of immovable property and without c....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1134

    Condonation of delay in filing this motion - reason for delay is failure to remove office objections on or before 07.01.2016. - Held that - The transfers of the officers of the department does not absolve the Revenue from prosecuting its appeal with sincerity and vigilantly. The reasons given in the affidavit in support of the Motion do not inspire confidence and it evidences the casual manner in which the Revenue prosecutes its appeal before thi....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1060

    Monetary limit involved in appeal - Clandestine removal - principles of Natural Justice - Whether the ld. CESTAT has grossly erred in law in ignoring the vital evidences in the form of voluntary statements of the Director and General Manager of the Company and the loose slips recovered by the Department during the search in setting aside the order of the ld. Adjudicating Authority? - Whether the ld. Adjudicating Authority grossly erred in law in ....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 1046

    Issuance of notice for final adjudication - request of the petitioner for his cross-examination, during assessment proceedings was rejected by the respondent No.2 the Commissioner Central Excise, Commissionerate, Udaipur - Held that - This Court deems it proper to issue notice.


  • 2018 (9) TMI 824

    Excisability/marketability - Classification of goods - chemical preparations for photographic use - whether classifiable under Chapter 37 heading 3707 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - Held that - The Registry is directed to place the papers and proceedings of the present appeal before the Hon ble the Chief Justice to obtain suitable directions to place following questions of law before the larger bench of this Court to decide the matter ....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 823

    CENVAT Credit - common inputs used in manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods - Rule 6 (3) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - crux of the argument of appellant is that there was no need to give retrospective effect to the amendment carried out by the notification dated 27.02.2010 because this notification substitutes the original provision of Clause (vii) of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2004, which itself was inserted vide No....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 822

    CENVAT Credit - input/input service used in Captive power plant - captive consumption of power generated - electricity generated partly consumed captively and partly supplied to other plants - Whether the ld. CESTAT was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to avail the full credit of Excise Duty/service tax paid on input/input services under in their captive power plant when all the power generated through the captive power plan....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 749

    Interest - relevant date for calculation of Interest - whether the date will be calculated from the date of the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2011 i.e. 08.04.2011 till the date of actual payment of the differential duty i.e. 31.05.2011 or not from the due date of payment of the differential duty i.e. 29.04.2010 till the date of actual payment? - Held that - The Apex Court in Star India (P)Ltd. 2005 (3) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT very clearly makes r....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 748

    Condonation of delay of 529 days in filing appeal - failure to remove office objections within the stipulated time i.e. 19.05.2016 - Held that - If the State is suffering on account of negligence of its officers then it must bring on record action ha....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 747

    Jurisdiction - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law was the Tribunal justified in holding that the Commissioner (Appeals) has exercised the powers under Rule 96ZM of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ( the Rules ) without going into the jurisdiction of the Joint Commissioner to pass the original order? - Held that - As it is in defiance of the provisions of Section 11A of the Act which at the relevant time only empowered the....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 746

    Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods - Confiscation - Whether mere storage of finished products and lying in the factory can be treated as unaccounted stock liable for confiscation? - Whether the Tribunal can ignore the plea of defect in quantification and impossibility of search operation within the short time and pass the order without reference to such issues? - Held that - There has been no investigation into the material aspects,....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 644

    Provisional assessment finalized or not? - Whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the assessment was provisional and was not finalized for the relevant period? - Held that - The impugned order of the Tribunal on the basis of the record available before it, and on the appreciation of the same, has rendered a finding of fact that the Assessment during the relevant period were provisional. This finding of fact is not shown to be perverse in an....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 643

    Demand of Excise Duty - demand set aside on the ground of death of proprietor - Held that - The demand of excise duty under the impugned order of the learned Commissioner could not be set aside solely on the ground of death of the proprietor and the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the legal representative of the proprietor Mr. Harilal M. Patel himself to either contest the said appeal on merits or the learned Tribunal should have decided t....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 642

    Monetary amount involved in the appeal - Maintainability of appeal - Held that - The present appeal is not maintainable now due to the tax effect involved in the present case being less than the prescribed monetary limit of ₹ 50,00,000/- and th....... + More


  • 2018 (9) TMI 573

    Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Commissioner to take into account the period during which the petitioner s factory was not in operative and the furnaces were not functioning while determining the Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) of the factory afresh? - Held that - No substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant case, as the dispute raised by the department is in a very narrow campus. On a reading of the ....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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