Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise SC Central Excise - SC This
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 3199 Records

  • 2016 (11) TMI 818

    The High Court while dismissing the appeal has not ascribed any reasons whatsoever, except stating that no substantial question of law arises for consideration. In our opinion, the High Court is required to give some reasons indicating that no substantial question of law is involved - In the absence of the reasons, we set aside the order dated 12.02.2016 and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration - SLP disposed off....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 626

    The decision in the acse of CCE, Bhopal Versus M/s Aristo Pharmaceuticals Limited 2009 (12) TMI 989 - CESTAT NEW DELHI contested - Held that - the issue that falls for determination in this appeal is clearly covered against the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. M/s. Vikram Ispat Ltd. 2016 (5) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT - appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 625

    The decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, DAMAN Versus PSL Corrosion Control Services Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 1122 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT contested - Held that - Since the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is negligible, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone, leaving the question of law open. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 568

    Abatement under sub-section (3) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the decision in the case of Maharshi Commerce Ltd. Versus Commr. of Cus. & C. Ex., Hyderabad-III 015 (7) TMI 1159 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT contested - appeal dismissed. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 567

    Recovery from company in liquidation - Held that - even if this appeal is allowed and the Excise Department is held entitled to recover the amount, it would not be in a position to recover any amount from the company in liquidation. Therefore, we do not deem it proper to go into the merits of this appeal because of the aforesaid reason - appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 566

    Manufacture - the decision in the case of DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS. Versus BACCAROSE PERFUME & BEAUTY PRODUCTS LTD. 2010 (1) TMI 437 - Gujarat HIGH COURT contested - Held that - The special leave petitions are dismissed, both on the ground of delay, as also on merits. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 565

    Demand - Undervaluation - the decision in the case of LIME CHEMICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELAPUR 2007 (12) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI contested - Held that - Since the tax effect is low, we are not inclined to entertain these appeals. - appeal dismissed. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 564

    Valuation - MRP based valuation - Rental charges on bottles and crates - the decision in the case of HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD 2006 (3) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI contested - Held that - tax effect is nominal. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed on this ground. The question of law is left open. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 563

    CENVAT credit - CVD - The decision in the case of M/s. Saraogi Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna 2007 (8) TMI 761 - CESTAT KOLKATA contested - Held that - appeal dismissed. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 562

    SSI exemption - the decision in the case of METRIPLEX PUMPS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE 2012 (5) TMI 245 - CESTAT, CHENNAI contested - Held that - Since the tax effect involved in the instant appeal is negligible, the appeal is dismissed on this ground alone, leaving the question of law open. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 561

    The decision in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD Versus KANORIA CHEM. & INDUSTRIES LTD. 2009 (9) TMI 832 - CESTAT NEW DELHI contested - Held that - the issue that falls for determination in this appeal is clearly covered against the Revenue by our order dated 25-10-2007 passed by this Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. v. M/s. Tata SSL Ltd. & Anr. 2007 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - In the circumstances, therefo....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 560

    Imposition of penalty - Assessee supplied the raw material to the loan licencee/job workers - They have paid the duty on the cost of raw materials and conversion charges - the decision in the case of M/s Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-II 2015 (10) TMI 1355 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD contested - Held that - The appeal, being sans merit, stands dismissed. ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 502

    100% EOU - 100% export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet - exemption contained under Rule 2 of Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 - Held that - a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Baba Global Ltd. has been finally disposed of by permitting the 100% export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet; and in Harsh International interim orders have been....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 399

    Classification of goods - drilling rigs mounted on motor vehicles chassis - Held that - The issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Cus. & Central Excise v. Vijay Mining Equipments 2015 (11) TMI 676 - SUPREME COURT wherein held that when drilling rigs and the motor vehicles are not integrally connected, the case would not fall within Chapter Heading 8705.00. - Decided....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 398

    CENVAT Credit - Job works - Held that - Appeal dismissed - CESTAT orders confirmed 2015 (11) TMI 38 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD . As assessee received the fabrics under the cover of Central Excise Challans issued under Rule 57F(4) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules and corresponding Rule of Central Excise Rules, 2012 and after due process of fabrics returned the goods to the raw-material supplier, who used in the manufacture of finished products and cl....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 397

    Demand alongwith and equivalent amount of penalty for not reversing the amount equal to 10% of the value of goods cleared without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Notification No. 33/05 Held that - The civil appeals against the order of the tribunal 2012 (9) TMI 566 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI dismissed as withdrawn........ + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 343

    Assessable value for payment of Central Excise duty under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - admisiblity of Turnover Tax deduction from the wholesale price - Held that - In view of the circular bearing No. 6/28/84-CX-1, dated 14-8-1984, nothing further survives in these appeals. See COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR Versus PARLE BEVERAGES 2005 (2) TMI 260 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 342

    Valuation - Uniforms for security guards - Mode of valuation - Held that - No one is present on behalf of the appellant. The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution. - Ref case - 2004 (3) TMI 587 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 341

    Review petition - Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) and concrete mix (CM) - manufacturing at site - Held that - We find no error much less apparent in the order impugned Ref Case - 2015 (10) TMI 612 - SUPREME COURT saying that RMC manufactured and used at site would not be covered by Notification No. 4 dated March 01, 1997 as it exempts only Concrete Mix and not Ready Made Mixed Concrete and we have already held that RMC is not the same as CM. - Decided a....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 340

    Prayer for review - Waiver of pre-deposit - Clandestine removal of goods - Financial hardship - Held that - We find no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant recall of our order 2016 (5) TMI 654 - SUPREME COURT saying that assessee has not deposited the amount against the order of the Tribunal. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed........ + More


5........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Let's just recapitulate:

|| 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.