Excise Duty : T. T. Recycling Management India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) is a resident Private Limited Company...
Excise Duty : It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PET Chips. The applicant now intends to start a new business whereby the applicant i...
Excise Duty : Nucleus Device is classifiable under Tariff Entry 85176290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Machines...
Excise Duty : The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dism...
Excise Duty : In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that the tag is applied by them while placing the jewellery in the box to preven...
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. M/s. Super Spinning Mills Ltd., it was held that non-mentioning of Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 would render the Show-Cause Notice outside the purview of Section 72.
In the case of M/s Shyam Steel Industries & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax & Ors, it was held by Calcutta High Court that discount of any type made known prior to the clearance of the goods but quantified subsequently
In the case of M/s.Thirumurugan Enterprises Vs The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that remanding back the case by Tribunal, without going into merits and asking the adjudicating authority to re-adjudicate the matter will not suffice.
In the case of Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, it was held by Punjab and Haryana High Court that substantive benefits provided by a notification cannot be denied on account of procedural lapses by the assessee.
In the case of M/s.Novel Digital Electronics Vs The Commissioner Customs (Imports), it was held by Madras High Court that penalty will ordinarily be imposed in cases where the party acts deliberately in defiance of law, or is guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct
In the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/s. Essel Propack Ltd., it was held that prior to year 2006, the Explanation to Rule 2(p) of the CENVAT credit Rules would be applicable. On plain reading of the said explanation, as it is not disputed that the respondents are paying service tax
