Search Results for "excise act"

Trending :

Supreme Court Sets Aside Appointment Orders in Steel Plant Recruitment Case Due ...
Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals of Para-Teachers Seeking Regularisation in Jhark...
Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Karnataka SC/ST Land Transfer Case Due to Lach...
Supreme Court Allows Collaborator's Arbitration Request Despite No Privity of Co...
Supreme Court Upholds Regulatory Commission's Order Restricting Depreciation to ...

Search Results for "excise act"

66 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 66 result(s)

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows State's Appeal Against High Court's Quashing of Import Fee on Rectified Spirit Used for Potable Liquor. Levy Held Valid as Regulatory Fee Under Jharkhand Excise Act, 1915, as Rectified Spirit Used for Manufacture of Intoxicating Liquor Falls Within State's Legislative Competence Under Entry 8 List II.

2 Jul 2019

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand against the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court which had quashed a notification...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Cognizance in Bihar Excise Case — Private Vehicle Not a Public Place Under Section 53(a) of Bihar Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. Consumption of liquor in a private vehicle does not constitute an offence under Section 53(a) as the vehicle is not a 'public place' under the Act.

10 May 2019

The appellants, all Rotarians, were travelling from Giridih, Jharkhand to Patna, Bihar in a private vehicle to attend a Rotary Club meeting on 25.06.2...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Manufacturer in Central Excise Valuation Dispute — Voluntary Charitable Donation (Dharmada) Not Part of Transaction Value Under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Court Holds That Only Consideration for Sale of Goods or Additional Consideration in Connection with Sale Can Be Included; Voluntary Payment for Charity Falls Outside Scope.

9 Apr 2019

The appellant-assessee, M/s D.J. Malpani, manufactured goods falling under Chapter 24 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. While selling goods, the appell...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Excise Duty Exemption Case — NCCD, Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess Not Payable When Basic Excise Duty Exempted. Exemption Notification Under Section 5A of Central Excise Act, 1944 Covers NCCD as Duty of Excise, and Surcharges on Excise Duty Cannot Be Levied Without Substratum.

1 Mar 2019

The appeal arose from a dispute between Bajaj Auto Limited (appellant) and the Union of India (respondent) regarding the liability to pay National Cal...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Part — NCCD Payable Despite Excise Duty Exemption, Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess Not Payable. The Court held that Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess, being surcharges on excise duty, cannot be levied when basic excise duty is exempted, but NCCD, being an independent duty of excise, is payable.

1 Mar 2019

The appeal arose from a dispute between Bajaj Auto Limited (the appellant) and the Union of India regarding the liability to pay National Calamity Con...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Trader's Liability for Excise Duty on Job Work Fabrics Under Rule 12B of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Court Held That the Trader Who Gets Fabrics Manufactured Through Job Workers Is Deemed Manufacturer and Liable for Duty, Not the Job Worker.

28 Feb 2019

The case involves appeals by Dinesh Textiles, a trader who got cotton fabrics and made-ups manufactured through job workers, against the order of the ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Carrying Cost in Change in Law Claims Under PPA — Restitutionary Principle Upheld. Article 13.2 of Power Purchase Agreement Entitles Generating Company to Carrying Cost from Date of Change in Law Till Approval.

25 Feb 2019

The case involves appeals by Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (Haryana Discoms) and Gujarat Urja Vika...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is distinct from that of the manufacturer, and the benefit of the second proviso (duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise duty paid by ...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim for Excise Duty Paid Under Protest by Manufacturer — Limitation Period Under Section 11B(1) Applies Separately to Buyer. The right of the buyer to claim refund under Section 11B(2)(e) is distinct from the manufacturer's right, and the benefit of the second proviso (waiver of limitation for duty paid under protest) does not extend to the buyer.

20 Feb 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central exci...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Buyer's Refund Claim in Central Excise Duty Case — Limitation Period Applies Separately to Buyer. The Court held that the period of limitation of six months under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies to a buyer's refund claim even if the manufacturer paid duty under protest, as the rights of manufacturer and buyer are distinct.

20 Feb 2019

The case involves a batch of appeals by Western Coalfields Ltd. (the appellant/buyer) against the rejection of its refund claim for central excise dut...

4 5 6 7

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)