Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise Sett Central Excise - Sett
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Settlement Commission - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 144 Records

  • 2016 (2) TMI 182 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

    In Re : Naaz Leather Finishers

    Settlement of a case - Eligibility to avail the benefit of the SSI exemptions No. 8/2003-C.E - benefit of cum duty price - Held that - The applicant has admitted duty liability on a cum-duty basis. The Revenue has not given any reason as to why cum-duty benefit may be denied. There is also no charge that the applicant cleared goods clandestinely nor is there any charge against M/s. Bata India that they procured goods from the applicant without pa....... + More


  • 2015 (4) TMI 1113 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

    In Re : Maa Chhinnamastika Cement & Ispat P. Ltd.

    Application for settlement - evasion of duty - Held that - In the instant case, a SCN F. No. 65/KZU/KOU/Gr.A/13/5430-31, dated 23-7-2014 was issued demanding duty amounting to ₹ 18,53,489/- (including duty of ₹ 17,99,504/-, Education Cess of ₹ 35,990/- and Secondary and Higher Education Cess of ₹ 17,995/-) on a shortage of 882,110 M.T. of Sponge Iron. The evasion of duty on this quantity of 882.110 M.T. has been admitted b....... + More


  • 2015 (3) TMI 1258 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

    In Re : Maithan Steel & Power Ltd. (Unit-I)

    Immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution - Benefit of reduced penalty of 25 - Scope of section 11AC before and after amendment w.e.f. 8.4.2011 - Clandestine removal - short payment of duty - Sponge Iron in lump and fine form - Held that - out of the total duty amounting to ₹ 1,73,25,387/- accepted by the applicants, a sum of ₹ 1,07,19,305/- pertains to the period prior to 8-4-2011 and the balance amount relates to the period after ....... + More


  • 2015 (3) TMI 1187 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

    In Re : Asansol Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

    Application for settlement - Held that - Bench observes that as per the provisions of Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an assessee can make an application for settlement only before adjudication. Since the show cause notice had already been adjudicated before the application was filed for settlement, Bench concludes that such an application cannot be entertained. Once the application for settlement itself is outside the purview of ....... + More


  • 2014 (10) TMI 861 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI

    In Re : Chiral Biosciences Ltd.

    Maintainability of application with Settlement Commission - Outstanding Central Excise duty - non-compliance of the provisions of clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the applicant has not paid the entire admitted duty liability besides not quantified the interest and paid the same - Held that - The Bench considers that the application is not maintainable and liable for rejection for non-compliance of the pro....... + More


  • 2014 (3) TMI 1078 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

    In Re : Shakambari Overseas Trades Private Limited

    Application to settle the case before settlement commission - Clandestine removal - MS Ingots - contravention of provisions of Rules 4, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the CER, 1944 read with Sections 91 and 93 of the FA, 2001 and Sections 136 and 138 of the FA, 2007 - applicability of the provisions of Section 32-O(1)(i) - whether the application of the co-applicant can be settled when the main applicant is not eligible to come before the Settlement Comm....... + More


  • 2014 (2) TMI 1290 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA

    In Re : Jai Prabhuji Iron & Steels (P) Ltd.

    Search - Seizure of the documents and records - Mis-declaration - Evasion of the duty - Interest - Penalty - time limitation - Held that - noticee number 1 while admitting and accepting their duty liability against such clandestine removals of finished goods, noticee number 1 deposited ₹ 30 lakhs through e-payment, they deliberately suppressed material facts relating to clandestine removal of finished goods without accountal and without pay....... + More


  • 2011 (7) TMI 1176 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

    In Re : Dujodwala Products Ltd.

    ... ...
    ... ... K.C. Singh) Member 16. In view of the dissenting opinion by learned Member, Shri K.C. Singh, the majority views prevail in terms of provisions of Section 32D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (H.O. Tewari) Vice-Chairman


  • 2011 (1) TMI 893 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

    IN RE: ALOK INGOTS (MUMBAI) PVT. LTD.

    Settlement Commission - grant of immunity from fine penalty and prosecution - Assessee knowingly avails wrongs Cenvat Credit on Inputs - Held That - Assessee co-operated in the proceedings of settlement and had also paid the amount of duty along with interest. Some leniency was given and penalty exceeding 2,50,000 was waived........ + More


  • 2009 (5) TMI 694 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: ALCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD.

    ... ...
    ... ... d given false evidence or had obtained this order by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Attention is drawn to sub-section (8) of Section 32F and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K of the Act. 22. emsp All concerned may be informed accordingly.


  • 2009 (4) TMI 734 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: ASHWANI TOBACCO COMPANY PVT. LTD.

    Settlement of case - Rectification of mistake - Penalty - Mandatory penalty - Precedent....... + More


  • 2007 (10) TMI 26 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI

    IN RE: SARFARAZ DHANANI

    Application of COFEPOSA absconder/detenue should be entertained by Settlement Commission as both are independent authority Diversion of high value export goods to local market and low value, prohibited goods exported Confiscation upheld Full immunity from interest and penalty not granted....... + More


  • 2007 (9) TMI 205 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CHENNAI

    IN RE: MARSHAL POWER AND TELECOM (IND) LTD.

    Clandestine removal by the EOU permission not taken for DTA clearance - benefit of exemption not. 8/97 would be applicable even to goods cleared to DTA without permission excise duty collected from customer was not deposited to the exchequer as required in terms of Sec. 11D - serious offence - applicant cannot be given complete immunity from payment of interest and imposition of penalty - since the amount of duty liability had been discharged in ....... + More


  • 2007 (8) TMI 553 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: K. RATHOD & COMPANY

    ... ...
    ... ... id. 8. emsp This order of settlement shall be void in terms of Section 32F(9) of the Act if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 9. emsp All concerned are informed accordingly.


  • 2007 (7) TMI 446 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: ITALIA DIE MOULDS

    ... ...
    ... ... Section 32E(1) of the Act are not at all met by the applicants. 20. emsp In view of non-fulfilment of the requirement under Clause (a) in the First Proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Act, the applications are rejected under Section 32 F(1) of the Act.


  • 2007 (6) TMI 487 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

    IN RE : GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD.

    ... ...
    ... ... his order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub Section (9) of Section 32F of the Act if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 32. All concerned are informed accordingly.


  • 2007 (4) TMI 423 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: YAMAHA MOTOR INDIA PVT. LTD.

    ... ...
    ... ... to the settlement had been concealed or false evidence was given or the Settlement Order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Attention is drawn to sub-section (9) of Section 32F and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K of the Act.


  • 2007 (3) TMI 618 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: PEACOCK PIGMENTS (P) LTD.

    Settlement of case - Demand and penalty - Clandestine removal....... + More


  • 2007 (3) TMI 597 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE,

    IN RE: SURYA HERBAL LTD.

    ... ...
    ... ... aterial particular to the settlement was concealed or false evidence was given or this Order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Attention is invited to sub-section (9) of Section 32F and sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 32K ibid.


  • 2007 (2) TMI 139 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

    IN RE: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

    Valuation(Central Excise) - Question arises whether valuation of slag Heaps should be based on sale price plus segregation cost or equivalent to the price at which so called Comparable goods namely skull scrape - Held that the assessable value of slag arrived on the basis sale price plus segregation cost ....... + More


1........
 
 
 
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version