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
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise HC Central Excise - HC
Citation -
Order by


Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 8855 Records

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1263 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Dewan Sugar Mills Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II

    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


    Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T., Raipur Versus Godawari Power and Ispat Ltd.

    CENVAT credit - electricity sold outside the factory - Rule 6(1), 6(2) and 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - maintenance of separate accounts - Held that - the electricity is not an item for which any particular rate of duty is fixed in the Tariff Act, none can be criticized for not having raised the issue of maintaining separate accounts either before the first appellate authority. The original order and its preceding notice of proposal in....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1212 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Versus M/s. India Actuators (P) Ltd.

    100 EOU - Debonding of unit - Whether the Tribunal is right in according permission for destruction of obsolete goods under Notification No.71/2000-Cus which became effective only from 22.05.2000, to the goods that became obsolete in the past, well before the Notification No.71/2000-Cus came into effect and for which show cause notice was issued on 11.04.2000 for the goods imported and purchased during 1993 and 1995 respectively? - Held that - In....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1211 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Premier Ispat Ltd.

    Whether the appeal could have been dismissed on the ground of defective authorization? - rejection on the ground that the authorization does not bears the date below the signatures of one of the members - Held that - It is not the case of any party that the authorization has not been signed by the said members or that the other member who had not mentioned the date below his/her signatures was not available on 28-6-2010 or that she has not applie....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Ban-Bro Metals (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & Customs, Aurangabad

    Deemed credit - Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right, under the facts and circumstances of the case, in denying the benefit of Deemed Credit in terms of the Government of India s Order No. TS/36/94/TRU, dated 1-3-1994 to the appellants after their crossing the value of clearances of ₹ 75.00 Lacs under N/N. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 as amended? - Held that - the submission of the learned Counsel for the Revenue is devoid of merit and is....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Saroja Vivekananda Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

    Offence u/s 9 and 9(AA) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - excise duty liability on asbestos cement sheets - petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of the said Company with effect from 24.06.2009 - Held that - Under Section 9(AA) of the Act, the persons who would be deemed to be guilty of an offence by a company are such persons who at the time of commission of the offence was in-charge of and was responsible to the day-to-day affairs of th....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Aquasub Engineering

    Principles of Unjust Enrichment - finalization of provisional assessment - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case CESTAT is legally correct in holding that uniformity of price before and after the finalization of provisional assessment is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the incidence of duty has not passed on to the buyers especially when statutorily the onus is on the respondent/assessee to prove conclusively with evidences ....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Wipro Limited, (Unit II)

    CENVAT credit - dutiable product subsequently becoming exempted product - rule 6(1) of the CCR, 2002 - Held that - the decision in the case of Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. TVS Electronics Ltd. 2017 (8) TMI 827 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, where it was held that If credit can be taken against excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day, it makes it abundantly clear tha....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 999 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Triveni Engineering And Industries Ltd. Saharanpur

    CENVAT credit - Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on plant and machinery as capital goods installed in the Co-generation power plant which is outside the approved factory premises and without bringing the same in their factory and without using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods? - Held that - Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, requires a person such as the assessee-engaged in prod....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 997 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. /W. R.O. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise And 2. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy

    Refund of pre-deposit - period of limitation - Section 11 B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - A refund will occur only if money is paid. Even, as per the orders passed by the CEGAT, the petitioner had pre-deposited such amount as a condition precedent for filing an appeal. Thus, the said deposit should abide by the final orders to be passed by the CEGAT in the petitioner s appeal petition. Such deposit amount cannot be appropriated....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 995 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s Mayank And Co.

    Withdrawal of Single appeal in respect of 8 appeals - Held that - A single appeal in respect of all the 8 appeals decided by the CESTAT is not permissible and rather creates confusion and complication - we permit the counsel for the appellant to withdraw this appeal and to file separate appeals in respect of each of the assessees - appeal is dismissed as withdrawn........ + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 826 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Meena Krishna Agarwal W/o Krishna K Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner And 1

    Attachment of immovable properties - creation of charge on such properties for the recovery of the dues of her husband - case of petitioner is that all the four properties proposed to be attached were purchased by her out of her own source of income and not acquired by her through inheritance from her late husband and the department therefore, cannot attach such properties - duty demand against the petitioner, wife of deceased assessee. - Held th....... + More


    M/s Hero Motocorp Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Dehradun

    Area based exemption - exemption in respect of NCCD, EC and SHEC - N/N. 50 of 2003 dated 10.06.2003 - CENVAT credit - penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - There is no dispute that the appellant has availed the benefit of said Notification. It be noted that under the same, the Authority has granted exemption from the whole of the duties payable under the enactments mentioned therein. In other words, it is not a case of partial exemption. There is no dis....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 769 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

    M/s. Berger Paints India Ltd. Versus Comm. of Central Excise Commissionerate & Others

    Requirement of Special Audit u/s 14AA of the CEA 1944 - transactional years 1999 to 2005 - Held that - the Commissioner/Respondent No.1 was under a legal obligation not only to comply with the twin obligations specified in the order dated 6th December, 2016 (supra) but, also to apply his mind with regard to the requirement of Section 14AA of the 1944 Act on the basis of the materials made available by the petitioner/assessee which gave ample evid....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 768 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    M/s. JVS Food Pvt. Ltd, Shri P.C. Mahnot (Director) , M/s JVS Food Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax, Additional Director General, Director General of Central Excise, Intelligence, Jaipur (Raj.)

    Maintainability of appeal - supply of the documents which sought to be relied - Held that - the issue is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kothari Filaments vs. Commissioner of Cus. (PORT), Kolkata 2008 (12) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT , and it was binding upon the officer to follow the said decision, otherwise any damage to the petitioner will be recovered from erring officer for not following the judgments which are binding and it will....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Sri Krishna Smelters (P) Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise

    Recovery of Excise duty - extended period of limitation - whether this Court should permit the petitioner to now challenge the Order-in-Original dated 10.01.2014 when the appeal filed against the said order stood dismissed though on a technical ground? - Held that - it appears due to the impugned proceedings under the Central Excise Act, the petitioner is now faced with proceedings under the Income Tax Act and the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act a....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 643 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    M/s Expo-Fyn Electricals & Electronics Presently Merged And Known As DANISH Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-I, NCRB, Jaipur

    SSI Exemption - threshold limit for exemption - Whether denial of benefit of SSI Exemption N/N. 9/2003 was just, legal and proper when admittedly the turnover for FY 2003-04 was less then ₹ 3 crores that is the prescribed time? - Held that - the appellant could not appear before the Tribunal and on facts, the appellant has a chance to distinguish the judgment which sought to be relied upon by the Tribunal - No facts or reasoning has been gi....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 642 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Thangam Steel Ltd., rep by its Director Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai

    Demand of interest u/r 96ZO(3) of the CER, 1944 - quantification of interest - Held that - a stand has been taken that several notices were issued to the petitioner for payment of interest, but they have not complied with the said demand. Since the Court was not satisfied with the contentions raised by the petitioner, it directed the respondent to produce the original files by order dated 31. 07. 2017. However, files are not forthcoming from the ....... + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 641 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Deeveear Reprographics P. Ltd., Rep. by its Director V. Duraisamy Versus The Customes Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , Trichy And The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore

    CENVAT/MODVAT credit - penalty - Held that - the order directing levy of penalty of ₹ 35,000/- under Rule 571(4) of the Central Excise Rules, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the third respondent for arriving at a correct value, as it is contended that cum-duty price ought to have been taken into consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand........ + More

  • 2018 (1) TMI 531 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Tablets (India) Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner, B Division, Chennai

    Validity of demand / show cause notice - SCN issued based on audit objections - Benefit of N/N. 29/88 Central Excise dated 01.3.1988 - Clearance of Tablets - Held that - Admittedly, the reason for impossibility of adjudicating the show cause notices cannot be put against the assessee, as the Department was contesting the audit objections. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the reasons contained in the counter affidavit as well as in the addi....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new


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

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

Go to Mobile Version