Search Results for "excisable goods"

105 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 105 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Manufacturer's Appeal in Rebate Claim Case Due to Limitation Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Rebate of duty on exports is governed by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11B, as 'refund' includes 'rebate' under Explanation (A) to that section.

The appellant, Sansera Engineering Limited, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported goods between August 2015 and October 2015 and filed claims fo...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee's Appeals on Cenvat Credit for Inputs Used in Exempted Goods, Partially Allows Revenue's Appeals on Education Cess. Tractors are exempted goods despite education cess, but separate accounts are required under Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

The judgment concerns multiple appeals filed by M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (Assessee) and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Revenue) against a co...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Cenvat Credit Interest Dispute — Reversal Without Utilization Does Not Attract Interest. Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 interpreted to require actual utilization for interest liability.

The appellant, Cipla Limited, a manufacturer of medicaments, was engaged in the manufacture of medicaments containing ethanol (alcohol) which fell out...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals in Central Excise Cases Involving 100% EOU — Cenvat Credit on Inputs and Capital Goods Allowed Despite Procedural Lapses. Substantial compliance with Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE sufficient for entitlement to Cenvat credit.

The judgment concerns three Central Excise Appeals filed by Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug and Shri Kamal Lalchand Chug, who are sole proprietors of 100...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petitioner's Rebate Claim as Time-Barred Under Section 11B of Central Excise Act — Export Date Determines Limitation Period, Filing of ARE-1 Not a Substitute for Rebate Claim.

The petitioner, Everest Flavours Ltd., exported a consignment of 360 drums containing Menthol Crystals to Bangkok on 12 February 2006. The shipping bi...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Refund of Excise Duty Paid on Exported Goods Under Mistake of Law — Rule 13 Export Bond Not Used. Duty Paid Under Mistake of Law is Recoverable and Limitation Under Section 11B Central Excise Act Does Not Apply to Mistake of Law Claims.

The petitioners, Tata SSL Ltd. and its director, exported consignments of Cold Rolled Sheets and Coils to Nepal by road. The goods were cleared from t...