|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 10150 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 (8) TMI 42 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - inputs - inputs sold without reversal of the credit as per Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The facts would disclose that the appellant was bonafide pursuing his appeal remedy before the Tribunal in Appeal No. E/20597/2015-SM challenging the order dated 17.11.2014 remanding the case to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the limited issue of the quantum of credit availed. In the meanwhile, the adjudicating authority in terms of the order dated 25.02.2016 granted the relief to the appellant, which forced the appellant to withdraw the appeal of the order DURAG INDIA INSTRUMENTATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE [2018 (2) TMI 1894 - CESTAT BANGALORE] before the Tribunal - The department challenged the order of the adjudicating authority dated 25.02.2016....... + More
- 2021 (8) TMI 37 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit involved in the appeal - Applicability of circular dated 22.08.2019 - HELD THAT:- Since the Circular of CBDT dated 22.08.2019 fixed the monetary limit at a sum of ₹ 1 Crore to file an appeal, the present appeal which has a tax effect of ₹ 3,45,203/- is not maintainable. Moreover, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of the Act or the Rules and no notification/instructions/Order or Circular is held illegal or ultravires. This appeal is dismissed on the short ground of monetary limit.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1252 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rebate Claim - rejection on the ground that the application seeking rebate was not filed within the time prescribed - exports effected by the appellant during August 2015 to March 2016 - section 11B of CEA - HELD THAT:- A reading of Section 11B of the Act makes it explicitly clear that claim for refund of duty of excise shall be made before the expiry of one year from the relevant date. The time prescribed under Section 11B of the Act was earlier six months which was later on amended on 12.05.2000 by Section 101 of the Finance Act, 2000. Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules and the Notification dated 06.09.2004 did not prescribe any time for making any claim for refund as Section 11B of the Act already mandated that such application shall be filed within one year. Section 11-B of the Act being the substantive provision, the same cannot yie....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1063 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal was not exhausted - question of facts - HELD THAT:- Preferring an appeal is the rule. Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority by following the procedures as contemplated, but not the decision itself. Therefore, the routine entertainment of a Writ Petition by dispensing with appellate remedy is not preferable and such an exercise would cause injury to the institutional hierarchy and the importance attached to such appellate institutions. The appellate institutions pro....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1045 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - service of notice - adjudication procedure under Section 33A(1) and Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not followed - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the paper book reveals that it is the case of the Revenue Department that though summons had been served upon the petitioner on 17th September, 2018, yet it had neither appeared before the respondent Department nor any documents had been filed on its behalf. It was only after the respondent-Department contacted the petitioner’s auditor, that he appeared and made a statement. Later also efforts were made to serve the petitioner with notices, however, the petitioner was not available at the given address. Keeping in view the fact that the demand is a high-pitched one and subsequent notices issued by the respondent to the petitioner had not b....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1031 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay of 107 days in filing the appeal - sufficient explanation for condonation of delay not provided - resignation of the concerned official dealing with excise matters - availability of alternate remedy by way of appeal - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The delay of 107 days is not inordinate for the 1st respondent/Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal as the precious rights to agitate the issue arising out of the order passed by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Salem cannot be denied to the petitioner unless there is an inordinate delay which has not been answered properly and condonation of the delay will cause prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. The alternate submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the remedy lies by way of an appeal ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1029 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interpretation of statute - 'the person chargeable with the duty', in the main part of sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - by such person or his agent in the Proviso - whether only one person can be charged with the duty on a given goods or otherwise? - Clandestine removal - demand of duty from two companies SAS and ASRM, who jointly involved in the manufacturing of the goods - HELD THAT:- The appeal admitted on substantial questions of law. Due to efflux of time, we are of the view that it may not be necessary to adjudicate these appeals and decide the substantial question of law as the department has availed the opportunity granted by the Tribunal in the impugned order and issued Show Cause Notices afresh, which are slightly different from the Show Cause Notices, which have ultimately culminated into....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 862 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner did not informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing - the impugned order was passed without providing personal hearing to the learned counsel who represented petitioner - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that in all circumstances, the parties aggrieved are bound to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority. However, in certain circumstances, the Courts are bound to consider whether the denial of opportunity caused certain prejudice to the interest of the person aggrieved. In the present case, admittedly, the summons were issued to the petitioner. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner entered appearance in the proceedings before the respondent on 04.03.2014 itself. Thus, there is a possibility that the petitioner would not have info....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 784 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Refund of excise duty - benefits under the Northeast Industrial Policy - UPVC Pipes, fittings etc. - N/N. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- As the Notification dated 27.03.2008 provides for a legal right to the assessee to claim for a special rate to be fixed in the event of there-being any add-ons to the goods manufactured, it is considered that without an appropriate decision being taken on such claim for special rate, it would be inappropriate for the department to proceed against the petitioners as per the rates provided in the Notification dated 27.03.2008. This petition stands disposed of by directing the Principal Commissioner of GST Guwahati to consider the aforesaid application of the petitioner dated 03.04.2021 claiming for a special rate to be fixed on the basis of the add-ons made to the goods manufactured - petition allowed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 122 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of proceedings - during the pendency of the Writ Petition, several developments occurred with reference to the issues raised in this Writ Petition - petitioner made submission that the petitioner may be granted opportunity to adjudicate all the issues before the adjudicating authority for the purpose of redressing his grievances - HELD THAT:- The respondents made a submission that with reference to such disputed facts and circumstances, the adjudicating authority has to go into the documents and take a decision. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the adjudicating authority by filing an appropriate reply in the prescribed format, complying with the requirements within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing any such reply to the adjudicati....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient explanation for delay not provided - fault due to counsel of appellant - HELD THAT:- It is apparent from a reading of the delay condonation application that only casual statements have been made without any details or supporting documents. According to the Appellant, an accountant had been entrusted to file the appeal but since he had suddenly gone on leave, a new counsel was consulted. The Appellant has not stated as to how the Appellant acquired knowledge that the accountant had not filed an appeal. The Appellant has also not stated on which date the Appellant acquired knowledge that the appeal had not been filed by the accountant. The delay in preferring legal remedies though is inexcusable without sufficient reasons, yet it is also a settled principle of law that normally a litigant m....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 28 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Adjudication of SCN after 18 years - transfer of the case to the "call book" - Clandestine removal - Recovery of taxes and duties - Department has gone in appeal to the appropriate authority - injunction issued by Supreme Court/High Court/CEGAT, etc. - audit objections are contested - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is no indication as to which of the categories stands attracted. From the facts narrated neither clauses (i), nor (ii) nor (iii) stands attracted. The present case has certainly not reached the stage of appeal and there is no order of the Supreme Court or the High Court or the CEGAT. This is not a case where the audit objections are contested by any one. Further, nothing is indicated in the counter affidavit about the Board specifically ordering this case kept pending by entry in the 'call book'. In ef....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 1038 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - refund of Education Cess and Higher Education Cess - covered under Section 35L or under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - HELD THAT:- At present learned counsel representing the Appellant-Revenue facing difficulty regarding agreed proposal made before the CESTAT of applicability of the judgment of the M/S. SRD NUTRIENTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE GUWAHATI [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT] and relying on the same the order was passed. Later the said judgment has been modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. UNICORN INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT]. However, the counsel for the Appellant-Revenue requests for filing a petition for rectification before the CESTAT, the said prayer appears to be justifiable........ + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 799 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rebate Claim - export of goods - rebate claims were filed during May, June and July 2009 on the exports made between July 2008 and January 2009 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Even if the petitioner was not entitled to rebate, the petitioner would have been entitled to exclude such goods under bond under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The issue is Revenue Neutral. Though, the conduct of the petitioner was no forthright and was intended to defraud the revenue, fact remains that the petitioner has paid back and compensated the revenue by paying the amount to the credit of the Central Government together with interest on 02.02.2009 - The exports are not be burdened with tax liability. The petitioner was not entitled for rebate, the alternative benefit of export under bond without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excis....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 677 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - cut tobacco - evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioners regarding evasion of excise duty or clandestine removal of goods, present or not - criminal proceedings ended in acquittal but simultaneous departmental proceedings continued - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the complaint, it is to be noted that the averments therein are verbatim repetition of the averments in the show cause notice dated 05.12.1995. There cannot be any doubt that departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution can be initiated simultaneously. It is settled law that there cannot be any hard and fast rule as to whether the criminal proceedings have to be quashed after departmental proceedings are concluded in favour of the accused. It depends upon the fact situation arising in each case. The appeal has been allowed vide order dated 26.12.2....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 585 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation services - period August, 2014 to March, 2016 - Circular bearing No.1065/4/2018-CD, dated 08.6.2018 was not considered - HELD THAT:- The aspect of non-consideration of the impact of the Circular, dated 08.6.2018, is fatal to the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration by the Appellate Tribunal after taking into account, the impact and effect of Circular bearing No.1065/4/2018-CD, dated 08.06.2018. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration of the issue and for passing appropriate order afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (6) TMI 370 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Manufacture of RMC at site or not - TMaintainability of petition - petitioners have not filed this petition impugning the Order-in-original within the statutory period prescribed under Section 35 of the Excise Act - petitioners’ case hinges on the assertion that the installation at the project site for manufacture of CM (which is exempted) is different from the installations for manufacture of RMC, and they have manufactured controlled CM, as civil contractors executing civil works contract, for captive use at site and not for sale - HELD THAT:- On examining the explanation offered by the petitioners for not filing statutory appeal and because of the absence of the necessary details, has opined in paragraph 16 above that the petitioners are superfluous in their explanation of the delay in availing/failure to avail the appeal remedy........ + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 147 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Area Based exemption - refund of Excise duty - benefit of N/N. 20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 - HELD THAT:- This petition is instituted on the grievance that the Notification dated 27.03.2008 having been restored as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. VERSUS M/S V.V.F. LTD. AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. [2020 (4) TMI 885 - SC ORDER], two application dated 28.09.2020 under Clause3(1) of the Notification No.20/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 was submitted by the petitioner claiming for a special rate, but the same has not been given its consideration and without giving a due consideration to the claim for special rate made by the petitioners, the respondents now intend to attach the bank accounts of the petitioner on the premises that the refund of excise duty would be as per the rates provided in....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 931 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Refund / Recovery of alleged excess amount of the money refunded earlier to the petitioner towards excise duties - case of petitioner is that though the petitioner is entitled to special rate to get these benefits and applied for finalizing the same, the authorities have not considered the same despite repeated representations submitted in that regard - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the respondent No.2, i.e., Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Guwahati shall dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner including the one dated 27.01.2021 for fixation of special rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also directed that till such decision is taken by the authorities on consideration of the representation(s) submitted by the petitioner, the authorities shall not take ....... + More
- 2021 (5) TMI 930 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Refund of alleged excess amount of the money refunded earlier to the petitioner towards excise duties - HELD THAT:- It is directed that the respondent No.2, i.e., Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Guwahati shall dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner including the one dated 05.02.2021 for fixation of special rate within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also directed that till such decision is taken by the authorities on consideration of the representation(s) submitted by the petitioner, the authorities shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the demand notice dated 01.01.2021 challenged in this writ petition. List along with WP(C) No.2566/2021 on 14.07.2021.
........
|
