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....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III Versus M/s Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd.

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 the Tribunal in M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. case was pending befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

-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 (DB): (i) Whether the CESTAT's final order is justifi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mittee 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 Excise Act, 1944 for the purposes of review of Final Orders t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

17 (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 (35) S.T.R. 3 (Del.) and Commissioner of Service Tax v. Japa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 decide that the case is fit for filing appeal. He further subm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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