Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 670 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 670 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT - TMI - Cenvat/Modvat on inputs - Held that: - the legal issue was decided in favour of the respondent by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) while referring to the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of MARUTI UDYOG LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III [2004 (6) TMI 155 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. The case was found to be fit for filing appeal before the Tribunal only for the reason that the appeal against the order passed by th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. - Central Excise Appeal No. 35 of 2015 (O&M) - Dated:- 4-10-2016 - MR. RAJESH BINDAL MR. DARSHAN SINGH, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate For The Respondent : Mr. Amar Pratap Singh, Advocate Rajesh Bindal J. The revenue is in appeal before this court raising the following substantial questions of law arising out of the order dated 5.11.2013, passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. 2569/2011-EX .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t places ? (iv) Whether the review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners signed on different dates should be treated as individual decision or decision of Committee of Commissioners ? (v) Whether the Review order passed by the Committee of Commissioners after careful consideration of facts and merits of the case is illegal and not in accordance with provisions of Section 35 B of the CEA, 1944 ? (vi) Whether it is mandatory for the Committee of Commissioners constituted under Central Exc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the case of CCE, Kanpur vs Ufan Chemicals 2013 (290) ElT 217 (All.) ? (ix) Whether the CESTAT's final order dated 5.11.2013 is correct and legally justified in dismissing the revenue appeal during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 7829/2004) and (SLP No. 22645/2004) filed by the Deptt. before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India containing similar issue ? Learned counsel for the appellant, while referring to the judgment of Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Service Tax v. L.R. Sharma, 2014 (3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s against the judgments of Delhi High court, being relied upon by the appellant, there are two orders passed by this Court in C.C.E., Delhi-III v. B. E. Office Auotmation Products Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (249) E.L.T. 24 (P&H) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. Elegant Enterprises, 2015 (323) E.L.T. 333 (P&H), wherein it has been opined that approval by the Committee of Commissioners on a note put up by the subordinate officer is not sufficient compliance for forming an opinion to deci .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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