Feedback   New User   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 61 to 80 of 8844 Records

  • 2018 (1) TMI 109 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Rafique Malik Prop. of M/s. Metro Shoes

    Manufacture - activity of taking out footwear in finished form from the boxes bearing M.R.P. and labelling the same with their brand names Metro and Mochi and of putting them into the same boxes - Held that - As admittedly, the footwear in finished form was received by the respondent, it is impossible to say that in the form in which the footwear was received, it could not be marketed or sold in open market by the respondent-assessee. Even withou....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Messrs Gopala Polyplast Ltd. And 2 Versus Union of India And 3

    Rejection of Settlement Application - communication of rejection within seven days - Held that - On 23.2.2017, the Settlement Commission was still not satisfied that all the requirements are fulfilled - Even after issuing the said communication dated 27.2.2017, the Commission did not pass any further order of not allowing the proceedings to proceed further. Period of 14 days was over. Long after that the petitioners approached this Court - If the....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Commr. of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Tiruchirapalli Versus CESTAT, Chennai

    CENVAT credit - interpretation of the words input and capital goods - Held that - similar substantial question of law decided in the case of M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars, M/s. Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Versus Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal, The Commissioner of Central Excise 2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that Rule 2k(i). Explanation 2 cannot be read in a manner that it constricts, the scope and ambit....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1494 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore Versus Maral Overseas Limited

    Maintainability of appeal - Penalty - Valuation - Held that - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore Versus Avtec Limited 2017 (12) TMI 1424 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the present case also, where it was held that if multiple questions are involved in the matter, then the department has to raise all these issues before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal under....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1437 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

    CENVAT credit - relevant documnets for clearing the goods - inputs in question were duly received at Malanpur Unit and used in the manufacture of the Plastic Laminates and Paper Laminates which were removed by the Appellant from Malanpur Unit on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty under paper invoices to the buyers - Held that - in absence of any provision akin to erstwhile Rule 57GG wherefrom provision of gate passes were omitted by N/N. ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1436 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore Versus Audi Automobiles

    Maintainability of appeal - Penalty - Valuation - Held that - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore Versus Avtec Limited 2017 (12) TMI 1424 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the present case also, where it was held that if multiple questions are involved in the matter, then the department has to raise all these issues before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal under....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1272 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi-II Versus Welspring Universal

    100 EOU - CENVAT credit - goods purchased from sister unit - whether the supplier being a sister concern had taken undue advantage of the benefit by charging duty which was paid by the respondent-assessee? - Held that - this is not a case of an arm s length transaction as the supplier and the respondent-assessee were related to each other, but counsel for the Revenue has stated that they have not examined the said aspect whatsoever and it is not ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1237 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Aafloat Textile India Ltd. (formerly known as Akai Impex Ltd.) Versus Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors.

    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law respondent no. 3 was required to serve a copy of the impugned order dated 9th January, 2015 upon the Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay? - Held that - in view of the fact that the order was not served on the company and on account of closure of the company as recorded above, there was no justification in proceeding to pass the impugned orders. On behalf of the Revenue, Mr. Bangur,....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Standard Industries Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV

    Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Rule 57AC (2)(b) are applicable to deny the credit of balance of the 50 percent of duty paid on the said capital goods in the next financial year 2001-02 when there is no such provision in Rule 57A (2)(C)? - Held that - In this case, the Apex Court observed that Rule 57AC does not restrict grant of credit in a given financial year. Further, it was observed that whereas 50 of the cre....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1231 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax Versus M/s. Ispat Industries Limited

    CENVAT/MODVAT credit - capital goods acquired on lease - Whether the Modvat Credit availed by M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd., on capital goods acquired by them on lease in terms of Rule 57(R)(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be availed prior to reimbursing the leasing company for the Excise Duty component or the same can be availed only after reimbursing the leasing company for the excise duty portion? - Held that - Sub Rule (3) basically provide....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1230 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. Mukund Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur & Ors.

    Whether the amount demanded by the Superintendent of Central Excise as duty of Central Excise by a mere letter DD2 without issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and without determination of the Central Excise duty due under Section 11A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and without granting any opportunity of being heard in the matter is an amount which can be recovered as Government dues under Secti....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 1229 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner Of Central Excise Versus M/s Curadev Pharma (P) Ltd.

    Refund claim - period prior to the registration of the respondent - Held that - The Court herein held that the refund would not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises. This Court in the above decision also held that under the Rules it is not a condition precedent that input service has to be received at registered premises only of the out put service provider. Therefore, merely for the reason that the pr....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 957 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s Varroc Polymers Pvt. Ltd.

    Extended period of limitation - Job-work - N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 - Held that - it is not disputed that the principal manufacturer/s, had submitted such declaration under the N/N. 214/86-CE - The fact that principal manufacturer/s did not honour the undertaking given by the department and thus they did not discharge the duty liability cannot be cited as a fact or circumstance against the assessee to invoke extended period of limitation. ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 956 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    M/s Waghbakriwala Rayons And 1 Versus Union of India And 1

    Validity of order directing to make pre-deposit while Remanding back the proceedings - Held that - Under sub-section (1) of Section 35, the appellate Tribunal has a power to pass such orders on the appeals as it thinks fit, either confirming, modifying or annulling the decision appealed against or it may also refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the appellate Tribunal may think fit, for ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 955 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Ruby Mills Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai IV

    Transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit - interpretation of statute - transfer of factory - whether Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 8 requires transfer of the entire factory to another site or it is applicable even to a transfer of a part of the activity undertaken in the factory? - Held that - the letter dated 18th May 2002 makes it very clear that only a part of the activity of manufacture of final product of grey and processed fabric has been transferred to t....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 900 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Mafatlal Harakhchand Shah Versus Union of India And 3

    Coercive Recovery of penalty - petitioner vehemently contended that the appeal of the petitioner is still pending before the Tribunal. Stay has not been vacated. Recovery pending appeal, therefore, initiated by the Department is improper and impermissible - Held that - The company had to deposit ₹ 2 crores within the stipulated time. When the company failed to deposit such amount, there would be no stay in favour of the company or appellant....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 819 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    SWAGAT SYNTHETHICS & 2 Versus UNION OF INDIA & 1

    Clandestine removal - proceedings kept in abeyance - call book - Held that - the long passage of time without any action on part of the department would not be justified making it difficult for the assessee to defend their position - after reactivating the dormant show-cause notices proceedings, the petitioners had full information that the department was proceeding with the said notices also. However, this would not be vital since all other mate....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 818 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    POOJA TEX PRINTS PRIVATE LTD. & 1 Versus UNION OF INDIA & 2

    100 EOU - proceedings kept in abeyance - call book - petitioners had made duty free imports of raw materials on the condition that the finished product would be exported. According to the authority, the petitioners had made clearance of finished goods in DTA area in breach of the Government policies - Held that - the department issued the show cause notice to the petitioner on 22.8.2002. After the petitioners reply to the show cause notice dated ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 767 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    KSM Earth Movers Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise

    Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - jurisdiction - Held that - question as to whether action was taken within the time provided under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, or under the extended period and violation of natural justice, also can be urged before the appellate authority - we are not inclined to entertain the appeal - Appellant/Writ petitioner is permitted to move the appellate forum - appeal dismissed being not maintainable........ + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 712 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Shree Shakambari Silk Mills & 1 Versus Union of India And 1

    Activation of adjudicating proceedings after a long gap over a decade - SCN was kept in abeyance - case of the Department, which now emerges is that on account of the fact that a similar issue is pending before the Supreme Court, the proceedings were kept in abeyance - case of appellant is that proceedings were kept in abeyance for over 15 years without any reason or explanation and the reason for the same was never communicated to the petitioner....... + More


4........
 
 
 
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