Refund claim - destroying goods outside the factory premises ...

Court Examines Whether Drug Destruction Rules Are Mandatory or Procedural; ESTAT's Interpretation Questioned on Exemption Notification.

July 25, 2019

Case Laws Central Excise HC

Refund claim - destroying goods outside the factory premises without permission - Expired drugs / medicines - conditions are procedural or mandatory in nature - ESTAT committed fundamental error in construing the Exemption Notification as directory by condoning the lapse on the part of the assessee

View Source

← Previous Next →

Refund claim - destroying goods outside the factory premises ...

Court Examines Whether Drug Destruction Rules Are Mandatory or Procedural; ESTAT's Interpretation Questioned on Exemption Notification.

July 25, 2019

Case Laws Central Excise HC

You may also like:

Appeal rejected on the ground of delay - Refund of unutilised input tax credit - The Court examined the interpretation of Rule 108(3) of the CGST Rules, which mandated...

HC upheld validity of Rule 36(4) of CGST Rules, dismissing constitutional challenge. Court determined Rule 36(4) derives authority from Section 16 of CGST Act and...

CENVAT Credit - restrictions in using the cenvat credit for payment of duty for the clearances - Pursuant to quashing of Rule 8(3A) by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court,...

The High Court held that respondent No. 3 cannot avoid deciding the petitioners' application dated 20 December 2023 seeking an advance ruling on the taxability of sale...

HC addressed a dispute over 2091 bags of Sodium Carbonate incorrectly declared as Arecanuts in import documentation. The court permitted the petitioner to submit...

HC addressed procedural challenge regarding SCN issuance under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. While examining propriety of officer authority and adherence to natural...

The HC quashed the order blocking the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger under Rule 86A of KGST/CGST Rules. The Court found multiple procedural deficiencies: no...

The HC held that the requirement to file a certified copy of an appealed order under GST Rules is procedural rather than mandatory. The petitioner had filed their appeal...

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner, being a registered person not liable for registration before the appointed day of 01.07.2017, sought...

The case involved the classification of Diagnostic Kits as "drugs" under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The court held that devices used for diagnosis fall under the...

Maintainability of appeal before NCLAT - applicability of time limitation - A sleight of interpretation of procedural rules cannot be used to defeat the substantive...

The adjudicating authority is bound to explain the alleged contraventions to the person proceeded against or their legal representatives. Rule 4(4) mandates...

HC ruled that Section 194N of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies comprehensively to cooperative banking societies, rejecting the petitioner's claim for exemption under...

The HC upheld tax and penalty under GST Act Section 129 after goods were found at a different destination than documented. The court determined that the petitioner...

Cancellation of GST registration of the petitioner - Rule 22 (3) of CER - The court examines the validity of the show cause notice issued by the respondent and considers...

Quick Updates: