Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 8854 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 815 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Benefit of N/N. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - electric wires and cables - non-fulfillment of conditions of notification - Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that electric wires and cables falls under the heading 98.01 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thus entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006? - penalty. - Held that - wires and cables is only for project therefore, ultimately it has to be applied unde....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 814 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Penalty u/r 25 of CER - Whether Order passed by the learned Tribunal is sustainable when the Settlement Commission had settled the case of main notice? - Whether penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is sustainable in case goods are not held liable to confiscation as there were no goods? - Held that - it was conceded by the assessee before the authorities below that the invoices were issued without even supplying any goods. It w....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 396 - KERALA HIGH COURT

    Time limitation for filing appeal - MODVAT/CENVAT credit - changes in CCR and there being no saving clause enabling the continuance of such proceedings - Held that - the appeal was rejected on 08.03.2001. The saving clause came into force two months after the appeal was rejected. The amendment was brought into Section 35C(2) in 2002 with effect from 11.05.2002, i.e., more than one year after the appeal was rejected. The appellant even then waited....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 395 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing the appeal preferred by the assessee holding that the Revenue could not have applied the extended period of limitation? - Held that - Mr. R. Santhanam, Advocate, who appears for the respondent, fairly states that the Tribunal had relied upon an earlier decision in the case of the assessee, which has been reversed by the Allahabad High Court with an order of reman....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 316 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    MODVAT/CENVAT credit - Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the H.R. Coils cannot be considered as components or accessories of the machinery so as to be eligible for Modvat credit of duty paid in terms of Rule 57Q of CER? - Held that - once the appellant-assessee demonstrated before the authorities that use of the HR coils in the cooling system of the power plant was essential for its functioning, they necessarily have to be tr....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 315 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    CENVAT/MODVAT credit - capital goods - Columns of heavy fabricated structures and bracings - Held that - It is not in dispute that the columns of heavy fabricated structures and bracings are used to support the boiler in the power plant of the appellant-assessee - such columns and bracings cannot be equated to civil constructions and would become a part of or an accessory to the machinery. Therefore, the denial of Modvat credit on the columns of ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 284 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    CENVAT/MODVAT credit - manufacture of additives for lubricating oil - shortage of stock - The SCN were issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai on the ground that during the course of verification of MODVAT/CENVAT credit accounts, and connected records, it was noticed by the Jurisdictional Range officer that the appellant was conducting physical stock taking of inputs on monthly basis and the quantity of inputs were found to be short....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 283 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    100 EOU - Principles of Natural Justice - main ground of challenge by the appellant in the present Appeal is that the Writ Court did not appreciate the issue in proper prospective, as the issue pending before the 1st respondent, as it stood, while the matter was to be heard finally by the 1st respondent, on 05.04.2016 was with regard to the demand of duty of ₹ 2,92,01,610/- on mould and as to whether claim of 90 of depreciation was allowabl....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 222 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of Rectification of mistake application - rejection on the ground of interpretation of Section 74 of the Finance Act, 1994 - it was construed that the ROM applications could be entertained and decided only by the same CEO, who passed the original orders, and that as such officer was no longer available in the office, his successor, i.e. the Principal Commissioner, has no authority to entertain and pass orders on the ROM applicatio....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 140 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of appeal - acquittal of accused - Held that - after filing of the complaint case before the trial Court the complainant and its witnesses shied away and did not turn up to the Court for cross-examination after pre-charge evidence were recorded - There was no alternative for the trial Court except to dismiss the complaint and to acquit the accused - appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    CENVAT credit - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the demand raised by the Respondents is sustainable since even if credit is denied to the Appellants, it is simultaneously available to other factories who according to the Respondents have received the inputs under consideration? - extended period of limitation - proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 12 of the erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 20....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Rebate claim - the petitioner s request is that if rebate is not to be granted on such additional amount of CIF value of goods, such extra amount be recredited to the Cenvat account of the petitioner - Held that - undisputed facts are that the petitioner had paid excise duty on CIF value of goods exported. The petitioner does not dispute the stand of the Government of India that excise duty was payable on FOB vale and not on CIF value. The Govern....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Valuation - Demand of duty with penalty - Period of limitation - sale of motor vehicles from depots / sales offices - case of Revenue is that the assessee had failed to intimate the difference in the above values and make payment of the excise duty on the differential amount on its own. The Revenue s statement throughout has been that this short payment and evasion was noticed during the audit conducted in January, 2001. This suppression was made....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1269 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Penalty - suppression of facts - Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Once the finding was that the short payment was for reasons of fraud, collusion or any mis-statement or suppression of facts particularly suppression which is apparent in this case then the Tribunal did not allow the appellant to canvass an argument that Rule 15(2) of the CCR 2004 is inapplicable. We see no perversity or error of law apparent on the face of....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1268 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of appeal - rectification of mistake application - Whether respondent no. 2 i.e. the tribunal has erred in rejecting the appeal at the stage of final disposal of appeal without taking into consideration the fact that the appeal has already been admitted after compliance of part payment of duty amounting to ₹ 25,544/- as per the stay order no. S/56/12/SMB/C-IV dated 1st May, 2012? - Held that - In the present case, the assess....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1267 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

    Whether the decision of the learned Tribunal is perverse for the reason of not considering the point of limitation taken in the ground of appeal before it? - Held that - the decision of the Tribunal is invalidated on the ground that the limitation question was not addressed to, we do not think any part of that order can be permitted to survive even though a part of the order might have had gone in favour of the appellant - the decision of the Tri....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1266 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    CENVAT credit - imported inputs/components which were found faulty during testing process - Whether the Tribunal is right in law in allowing Cenvat Credit of the duty paid in respect of imported inputs/components which were found faulty during testing process prior to the issuance of the same into the manufacturing process of final product and the same inputs were re-exported to the overseas supplier without reversing the Cenvat Credit availed ea....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1265 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Principles of Natural Justice - application to Settlement Commission - Section 32F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - it appears that the petitioners did not avail the opportunity before the Commission and therefore, the Commission opined that the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics and rejected the petition - Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending from the year 2006 onwards and there is an order of interim stay, th....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1264 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Clandestine removal - excesses of stock - Held that - In the impugned order dated 5th August, 2016 it was held by the CESTAT that since in the proceedings initiated by the Revenue separately to establish clandestine clearance and demand of duty stood set aside already by the CESTAT, the seizure of the goods which lead to the SCN in the present case was also held to be not sustainable and set aside. The proceedings for imposition of personal penal....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1263 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Rectification of mistake - whether the CESTAT was justified in rejecting the application for correction of the mistake even when the mistake was on part of the tribunal and was not attributable to the assessee? - Held that - Where the correction is not attributable to the party, there may not be any necessity for moving an application and the same can be rectified by the court/tribunal as soon as it comes to its notice. Therefore, when a mistake ....... + More


2........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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.

Go to Mobile Version