High Court of Karnataka Hears Batch of Writ Petitions by Bar/Restaurant Licensees Against Non-Renewal of CL-9 Excise Licenses. Petitions Challenge Communications Issued by Excise Authorities and Seek Directions to Renew Licenses.
22 Aug 2017...
Search Results for "Excise Commissioner"
1599 result(s) found
Found 1599 result(s)
High Court
Karnataka High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Cancellation of CL-2 Excise Licences for Alleged Distance Violation. Held that Rule 8(1) of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquors) Rules, 1968 does not apply to shops existing before the 2002 amendment and that cancellation without proper notice violates natural justice.
22 Aug 2017The judgment pertains to two writ petitions filed by M/s. Shankar Wines and M/s. Blue Peacock Ventures, both holders of CL-2 licences under the Karnat...
- 67
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal on Vested Right of Appeal in Central Excise Case — Amended Pre-deposit Requirement Not Applicable to Appeals Where Lis Arose Prior to Amendment. The court held that the right of appeal is a vested right and the amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, effective from 6 August 2014, cannot be applied retrospectively to fetter that right.
25 Jul 2016The appellant, Nimbus Communications Limited, entered into an agreement and was subjected to a service tax demand. The appellant filed an appeal befor...
- 121
High Court
High Court of Bombay Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Modvat Credit Case — Captive Power Plant Erection Eligible for Credit Under Rule 57Q(6) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Substantial questions of law answered in favor of assessee regarding eligibility of credit on capital goods used in erection of captive power plant by other divisions of the same group.
14 Jan 2022The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) which upheld the Commiss...
- 46
High Court
Karnataka High Court Adjudicates Writ Petitions Challenging Mandatory Pre-Deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The court examined whether the mandatory deposit requirement violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.
7 Oct 2015The High Court of Karnataka heard a batch of writ petitions filed by several assessees, including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Prestige Garde...
- 38
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Penalty Case — Tribunal Cannot Reduce Mandatory Penalty Under Section 11AC. Assessee Not Entitled to Benefit of Provisos for Payment of Duty and Interest After Show Cause Notice.
13 Oct 2010The case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ...
- 63
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Against Rejection of Condonation of Delay in Service Tax Appeal. Commissioner (Appeals) directed to decide appeal on merits after condoning delay of 22 days, holding that sufficient cause was shown and that the appellate authority should have considered the application liberally.
12 Mar 2021The petitioner, Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the business of import, manufacturing, assembling and sale of motor vehicl...
- 56
High Court
Bombay High Court Dismisses Review Petition in Central Excise Appeal — No Power to Review Under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 35L of the Act Bars Application of CPC Provisions on Review, Hence Review Petition Not Maintainable.
16 Dec 2010The petitioner, VIP Industries Ltd., filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an earlier order that dismissed its applic...
- 57
High Court
Bombay High Court Admits Central Excise Appeal on Conditional Exemption and Cenvat Credit. The Appeal Raises Substantial Questions of Law Regarding Notification No.6/2006-C.E. and Credit on Aggregates Used in Export.
9 Sep 2014The Bombay High Court heard a central excise appeal filed by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V. The appell...
High Court
Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Tribunal's Predeposit Order for Public Sector Undertaking in Central Excise Matter - Prima Facie Case and Financial Solvency Must Be Considered Under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court held that a Public Sector Undertaking of substantial worth and solvency cannot be directed to predeposit 50% of duty without considering its prima facie case and ability to secure revenue by bond.
28 Jun 2011The appellant, M/s. Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd., a Public Sector Undertaking and Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act,...
- 75
