Search Results for "Customs and Central Excise Department"

540 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 540 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Customs Valuation Case — Confirms CESTAT's Finding That Transaction Value of Imported Goods Is Acceptable Under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Burden of Proof on Revenue to Show Fraud or Misdeclaration Not Discharged.

The case involves four Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port-Export), Chennai, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Dismisses FCI's Appeal in Customs Duty Refund Case — Limitation for Appeal Under Section 128 Cannot Be Condoned. Import of Section 129A to condone delay in first appeal under Section 128 is impermissible as Customs Act is a complete code.

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 104 of CPC, cha...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Central Excise Case Due to Limitation Bar. Demand for Excise Duty on Gates and Hoists Supplied to Irrigation Department Held Time-Barred Under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant, Water Resources Development (formerly Irrigation Department), was engaged in manufacturing mechanical gates, parts, and hoists for dams...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Classification of Plant Growth Promoters as Excisable Goods Under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Products Containing NPK as Essential Constituent Classified as 'Other Fertilizers' Under Note 6 Chapter 3105, Attracting 1% Duty.

The petitioners, Dharti Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and its director, challenged an order dated 8 March 2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Cross-Examination in Customs Show Cause Proceedings - Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses Whose Statements Are Relied Upon Is a Fundamental Principle of Natural Justice

The petitioner, Kalpena Industries Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in manufacturing polyethylene/polypropylene ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Circulars Including Dealer's PDI and Free After-Sales Service Costs in Assessable Value of Vehicles — Circulars Held Ultra Vires Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The petitioner, M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., a manufacturer of vehicles, challenged clause 7 of Circular No. 643/34/2002CX dated 1st July, 2002 and Circular...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Condition in Customs Circular Requiring Bank Guarantee for Accredited Importers. Condition Requiring Bank Guarantee for Differential Duty in Provisional Assessment Held Valid as Reasonable Safeguard Under Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner, Shah Pulp & Paper Mills Limited, challenged the legality and validity of a condition contained in paragraph 7(iii) of a circular issue...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Extended Period Demand Under Section 11A of Central Excise Act — Suppression of Facts Justifies Extended Limitation. Forgings Classified Under Chapter 84 as Machinery Parts, Not Eligible for Exemption Under Notification No.223/88.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Rajkumar Forge Limited and its director challenging orders of the Commissioner of Central...