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 Short Notes 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 61 to 80 of 9073 Records

  • 2018 (5) TMI 1669

    Penalty u/s 11AC - entire payment of disputed tax was paid by the appellant on or before passing of the order-in-original - Held that - It is accepted and admitted that the appellant herein did not pay the penalty imposed u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Mere payment of differential duty, i.e. duty on the goods S.S. ingots found short by 4510 kg and S.S. flats found in the premises of M/s Shree Shyam Cutter and M/s Shree Ganesh Cutter would no....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1563

    Pre-deposit under amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Area Based Exemption - commencement of Commercial production - case pf petitioner is that appeal of the petitioner should be admitted for consideration and heard, without insisting on pre-deposit in view of the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal which have attained finality, upholding stand and stance of the petitioner on claim of exemption under notification dated 10th June, ....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1459

    Refund - maintainability of petition - alternative remedy - Held that - the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order. The narration of facts noticed hereinbefore clearly shows that certain factual matrix is required to be established for which the first appellate authority would be proper forum instead of invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the first instance........ + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1358

    Dutiability - Spent Sulphuric Acid being generated as a by-product during the manufacture of Acid Slurry - N/N. 89 of 1995 dated 18.05.1995 - area based exemption - maintainability of appeal - Held that - the question, which may arise, is a question which relates to the entitlement of the respondent under N/N. 89 of 1995, which is issued under Section 5A and, therefore, is an exemption Notification - appeal dismissed as not maintainable........ + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1209

    Re-credit of CENVAT amount - Whether the action of the assessee in taking re-credit of CENVAT amount after the Revenue had already rejected his claim can be termed as a fraudulent or other illegal activity done with an intention of defrauding the Government Officials? - Held that - The assessee has not taken the re-credit of its own, but the same was done on the basis of its Auditor s objection. It amounted to an account entry reversal without th....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1208

    Tax Appeal admitted to consider the question - Whether the CESTAT is right in law not to decide on merits though there a Jurisdictional High Court decision in case of Commissioner of C. Ex., AhmedabadII Versus Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 2013 (1) TMI 304 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT And Astik Dyestuff Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs 2014 (1) TMI 776 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ?....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1207

    Whether the Hon ble Tribunal was justified in sustaining the order of imposition of penalty when the duty demand does not survive as the same stands deposited much prior to the issuance of the show cause notice? - Held that - The reduction of penalty even to rupees one lac is not justified as it is a matter of record that the excise duties have been paid along with interest even before issuance of show-cause notice for the penalty. Even the bare ....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1178

    Removal of Office objections - Held that - Office objections to be removed on or before 9th May 2018, failing which the concerned matter/s will stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court........ + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1058

    Interest on delayed payment of duty - Section 11AA of the CEA 1944 - assessee contested the demand of interest and failed before the appellate authority. Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was noticed that no steps had been taken by the Department under Section 11A of the Act - Held that - there has to be a determination under Section 11A(2) of the Act preceding any measures taken under Section 11AA thereof - Since the Appellate Tribunal found, as....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1057

    Rebate claim - revision applications under Section 35EE - time limitation - Held that - respondent no. 2 has proceeded to apply the provisions of sub-Section 3 of Section 35EE of the Act which contemplates and requires that a revision application ought to have been accompanied by a fees of ₹ 1000/- when the amount of duty, interest demanded, fine or penalty levied by any of the authority in the case to which the application relates is more ....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1056

    Revision petition u/s 35 EE of the CEA 1944 - the revisional authority (respondent no.4) dismissed the revision petition only on the ground of delay of 8 years in filing revision petition - Held that - petitioner preferred revision petitions after delay of 8 years knowingly well that revision is not maintainable, preferred appeal before CESTAT and CESTAT Commissioner specifically apprised the counsel for the petitioner in his order dated 9.8.2005....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 1055

    Valuation - SSI Exemption - Determination of turnover - whether the value of chassis which the respondent assessee uses for fitting bodies upon manufactured vehicles should be included for ascertaining the assessee s value of aggregate clearances for the purpose of exemption as a Small Scale Industrial unit? - Held that - When one is ascertaining the aggregate value of clearances of all excisable goods for home consumption for the purpose of clau....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 820

    Clandestine removal - validity of evidences - Whether ld. CESTAT, New Delhi has erred in brushing aside the vital evidences in the form of voluntary statements of the Director of the assessee respondent Company which was corroborated by the reports of the test samples and in turn setting aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority? - penalty on assessee u/r 26 of CER, 2002. - Held that - in the statement of Director and laboratory report, there....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 780

    Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the CESTAT erred in confirming the duty invoking the extended period of limitation when the finding on suppression by the CESTAT falls way short of the requirements of proviso to section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - There is a reference to the declarations made by the appellants for the years 1987- 88 to 1994 -9....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 605

    Unjust enrichment - provisional assessment - Validity of SCN - Whether tribunal is correct in holding that bar of unjust enrichment is not legally applicable to the provisional assessment cases before amendment to Rule 9B? - Held that - the entitlement to refund and finalization of the provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is independent from the provisions of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 19....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 309

    Refund - finalization of provisional assessments - unjust enrichment - Whether the Honble CESTATs decision is correct in holding that refund arising out of the finalization of provisional assessments during the period February 1985 to April 1995 need not pass the test of unjust enrichment as the amendment to sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B came into force only w.e.f. 25.06.1999? - Held that - refund arising out of the finalization of provisional assessme....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 308

    Penalty u/s 11AC - case of appellant is that because the appellant assessee had deposited the entire duty with interest even before receipt of SCN, Section 11AC of the Act would not be attracted - Held that - it is evident that the appellant assessee had entered fake Challan nos. in the ER-1 return which could be noticed by the department and only thereafter when a telephonic message was received by the department assessee, he deposited the entir....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 307

    Refund claim - duty paid by appellant twice - absence of documentary evidence - Held that - Without any documentary evidence the appellant is not entitled for the refund claim - The amount is open in financial records as a wrong debit to be received from Excise Department. After entry of this document the assessee has not produced any valid document that bars any unjust enrichment - refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Re....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 306

    Whether the CESTAT committed error in non-considering that the Respondents deliberately cleared goods under Rule 4(5) of CENVAT rules as if cleared for repairing/reconditioning i.e. Job work with intention to avoid payment of amount equal to CENVAT Credit as required under Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Rules and therefore contravened Rule 4(5) and Rule 3(5) of CENVAT Rules 2004? - Held that - It is not disputed that, before the amended Rule 3(5) came into ....... + More


  • 2018 (5) TMI 305

    Effect of amendment to Cenvat Credit Rules - retrospective or prospective - inputs used in capital goods embedded to earth - as the amendment brought in CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 as per Rule 2 of the CENVAT (Amendment) Rules 2009 retrospective in nature considering is it clarificatory to be applied to all matters which arise before 07.07.2009, the date of commencement of the CENVAT (Amendment) Rules 2009? - Held that - Section 37 of the Central Ex....... + More


4........
 
 
 
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.