Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Holostick India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise , Hon'ble Supreme Court held that While classifying a...
Excise Duty : Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. CCEC (Supreme Court of India) The legal heirs submitted that a reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4...
Excise Duty : In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/S Sarvotham Care Limited, it was held that wherein the shampoo havi...
Custom Duty : In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Not...
Excise Duty : In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished prod...
Custom Duty : In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not b...
Shabina Abraham & Ors. Vs. CCEC (Supreme Court of India) The legal heirs submitted that a reading of Sections 2(f), (3), Section 4(3)(a), Section 11 and 11A as they stood at the relevant time would show that unlike the provisions of the Income Tax Act
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. M/S Sarvotham Care Limited, it was held that wherein the shampoo having medicinal properties and the dominant use of shampoo was medicinal.
In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Seiko Brushware India , it was held by Supreme Court that benefit of exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus. Dated 13.06.1998 for NIL SAD is not granted in respect of such goods which the importer sells post importation from a place located in an area where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods.
In the case of M/s. Rupa & Co. Limited Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held that what is contained in finished product is only a quantity of all the inputs of the same weight as that of the finished product
In the case of M/S. Jaswal Neco Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Customs , it was held by Supreme Court that anti-dumping duty could not be added for computing customs duty, Special Customs Duty and Special Additional Duty by referring to the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs
In the case of D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector Of Customs And Ors, it was held by Supreme Court that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, while issuing appropriate writs, are very wide.
It has been held in case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), RAIGAD V/s. M/S. FINACORD CHEMICALS (P) LTD. & ORS by supreme court that,As per the Department, these imports were under invoiced at pound 1.40 per litre whereas the actual price of the said goods was pound 3.78 per litre.
In the case of Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs CCE, it was held by Bombay High Court that the period of limitation prescribed in section 11A of the Act cannot be enlarged. Once it is possible to scrutinise and verify the compliance of the terms and conditions on which the exemption has been issued in this case
Raymond Limited V/s. CCEC (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that there is no substance in the argument that between 1st March, 2002 to 9th September, 2004 the credit of AED(T&TA) can be used for payment of any of the specified duty referred to in SubRule (1) of Rule 3.
CEAT Limited V/s CCE&C( Bombay High Court)- If the liability to pay interest between the time or the period of provisional assessment and payment of differential duty until the final assessment has to be read in the Rule, that is not possible.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||
