Search Results for "Excise Commissioner"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "Excise Commissioner"

1601 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 1601 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Revisional Order Allowing Liquor Licence in Village Where Women's Gramsabha Resolution Banned Liquor — Held That Gramsabha Resolution Under Section 138 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 Must Be Given Due Weight and Cannot Be Ignored by Revisional Authority.

30 Aug 2012

The petitioners, residents of Village Chas (kaman), Taluka Khed, Dist. Pune, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of I...

High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heir for Company's Central Excise Dues Without Proper Adjudication. Personal Liability Cannot Be Imposed on Legal Representative Without Determining Liability Under Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

13 Feb 2012

The petitioner, Vandana Bidyut Chaterjee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging various notices and communi...

High Court

Madras High Court Allows CENVAT Credit Claim for Furnace Oil Used in Manufacturing Intermediate Non-Dutiable Product. Furnace oil used to produce Dead Burnt Magnesite (DBM) held to be 'input' for final excisable goods under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2001, as DBM is an intermediate product essential for manufacture of final goods.

25 Jun 2026

The appellant, M/s. Tata Refractories Ltd. (now TRL Krosaki Refractories Limited), is an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944. It manufactures ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Rejection of SVLDRS Declaration — Holds Designated Committee Cannot Reopen Final Assessment Order. Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 declaration must be processed based on declared tax dues as per final assessment order, not on show cause notice demand.

9 Mar 2021

The petitioner, Eureka Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturing unit holding central excise registration, was issued a show cause-cum-demand notice date...

High Court

Karnataka High Court Hears Batch of Writ Petitions Challenging Central Excise Notification on Tobacco Products. Challenge to Notification No.3/2019 under Central Excise Act, 1944 Alleged Violation of Constitutional and Statutory Provisions.

4 Jan 2022

A batch of writ petitions was filed by several manufacturers of tobacco and tobacco products under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India b...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Examines Writ Petition Challenging Rejection of Subsidy for Grain Alcohol Production Under GR Dated 08.06.2007. Petitioner Seeks Direction to Grant Special Subsidy/Incentive of Rs. 10 Per Bulk Litre and Quashing of Rejection Order Dated 24.11.2021.

9 May 2025

The present writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under its civil appellate jurisdiction by Karan Distilleries Pvt. Lt...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Manufacturer in Central Excise Duty Dispute on Captive Consumption of Yarn. Court Holds That Bank Guarantees Furnished Under Interim Order Can Be Enforced Without Section 11A Notice.

9 Dec 2019

The appellant, M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd., was engaged in the manufacture of cotton and manmade fabrics. It claimed that the fabric manufa...

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 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...

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 Court held that the buyer's refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of purchase, and the manufacturer's protest does not extend the limitation for 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 ...

21 22 23 24 25

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