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 81 to 100 of 8852 Records

  • 2017 (12) TMI 957 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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


  • 2017 (12) TMI 711 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Writ of mandamus - Section 36(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - this Court is fully convinced that the stand taken by the petitioners is only to stall the adjudication proceedings under the guise that the petitioners have not been provided with the documents - there is absolutely no basis for issuing any direction to the authorities to provide any further documents or copies of the compact discs. Thus, the restricted prayer sought ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 710 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of petition - invocation of writ jurisdiction - Held that - In view of the fact that the petitioner was bona fide pursuing his remedies before this Court in this present petition, if appeal before the Appellate Commissioner is filed latest by 05.12.2017, the same shall be examined on merits without reference to limitation - petition dismissed........ + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 638 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT

    Area Based Exemption - doctrine of promissory estoppel - notifications whittling down the exemption benefits - It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner started investing for setting up its first unit from the year 2005 only. Evidently therefore, the Petitioner had started the investment only after issuance of impugned Notification No. 27/2004 amending N/N. 56/2003 which notification put into operation the Industrial Policy, 2003. The ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 627 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Refund claim - amount deposited under coercion - Held that - the department cannot hold on any amount from the assessee, which the department has no authority in law to retain. If the petitioners had disputed the duty liability at the very outset and promptly taken up the issue with the authorities immediately, the question of the department s authority to withhold such amount would rest on entirely different considerations. The facts of the pres....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 622 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Validity of Rule 96ZQ of the CER, 1944 - petitioner has claimed a declaration that Rule 96ZQ of the CER, 1944 is illegal and null and void and is liable to be struck down - Held that - In the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has held that Rule 96ZQ is invalid - the order imposing penalty in exercise of powers under Rule 96ZQ of the said Rules cannot be sustained - penalty set aside - a....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of appeal - Section 35-G of the CEA, 1944 - It is contended that, this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain these appeals, and notwithstanding the fact that the appeals have been admitted, jurisdiction cannot vest in this Court when such jurisdiction is not specifically prescribed by the Statute - Held that - the issue which we are called upon to adjudicate, would lead to a decision (if the appellant succeeds) determining....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 332 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

    Penalty - Section 11A of the CEA, 1944 - Held that - when action of the assessee cannot be said to be mala fide or that there is no finding of fact of the assessee having perpetuated fraud, collusion or having made willful mis-statement or suppression of facts, the Assessing Officer could not have exercised his power u/s 11A within the extended period of limitation so provided in terms of the proviso contained therein - appeal dismissed - decided....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 225 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Valuation - Compounded Levy Scheme - section 3A of the Central Excise Act - annual production capacity - case of Revenue is that the petitioners had initially applied for being covered by annual production capacity regime and had availed all the notifications issued under the said scheme - Held that - Section 3A of the Central Excise Act introduced with effect from 16.12.1998 pertained to the power of Central Government to charge excise duty on t....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    On what basis is an issue concerning the jurisdiction of the CESTAT to entertain an appeal on the judicial side being referred by the Bench of the CESTAT to the President of the CESTAT on the administrative side? - Held that - Respondent no.1- CESTAT, has filed an affidavit through its Registrar. It is stated by the respondent that the matter was listed on the judicial side, when the two members Bench had referred the matter to the President on t....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Validity of tribunal order - CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the appellant / assessee on monetary ground - Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether the second respondent is right in depriving the appellant the statutory right as provided under Section 35 (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - On more than one occasion, the Hon ble Supreme Court and this Court, held that the reasons are the heart beat of any decision. Di....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Monetary limit involved in appeal - maintainability of appeal - Held that - Material on record discloses that apart from duty and interest, a sum of ₹ 9 lakhs has been ordered to be paid towards redemption penalty. A sum of ₹ 2,23,605/- (including cess) has been ordered as penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules and ₹ 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, for the delayed payment of Central Excise duty - Pe....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 1612 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy - time limitation - Held that - as against the impugned order, the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy of filing an appeal before the CESTAT. Whether the appeal was presented within time and whether the date of receipt of the Order-in-Original as stated by the assesse is correct or not is a factual issue. Therefore, the petitioner has to necessarily avail the appeal remedy - petition dismi....... + More


5........
 
 
 
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