Search Results for "Karnataka Excise Rules"

129 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 129 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Excise Commissioner's Order in CL-9 License Shifting Dispute — Violation of Natural Justice. Appellate Authority's Reversal of Shifting Permission Set Aside for Lack of Notice and Hearing to Licensee.

The petitioner, S.B. Manjunath, a CL-9 licensee running Moon Star Bar and Restaurant in Honnalli Town, Davanagere District, applied on 19.01.2024 unde...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Seeking Registration of Sale Certificate Under SARFAESI Act. Sub-Registrar Directed to Register Sale Certificate Despite Pending Civil Suit as Section 89(4) of Registration Act, 1908 Mandates Registration.

The petitioner, Sri T. Bharathgowda, purchased a property at an auction conducted by Canara Bank (respondent No.3) under the Securitisation and Recons...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Duty Drawback Interest Case, Upholding High Court's Award of Interest for Delayed Refund. Clarificatory Circulars Under Exim Policy Have Retrospective Effect, Making Contractor Eligible for Duty Drawback and Interest Under Sections 27A and 75A of Customs Act, 1962.

The dispute arose from the respondent's claim for duty drawback under the deemed export scheme for civil construction work in the Koyna Hydro Electric...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses State's Appeal in Excise Duty Dispute Over Non-Potable Weak Spirit. State's Authority to Levy Excise Duty is Limited to Alcoholic Liquors for Human Consumption Under Entry 51 List II of the Constitution, While Non-Potable Spirit Falls Under Central Power Under Entry 84 List I.

The appeals arose from a common judgment of the High Court of Orissa, which allowed writ petitions filed by the respondent-company and set aside deman...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court Dismisses Revenue's Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction Under Section 35-G of Central Excise Act, 1944. CESTAT Orders Not Appealable to High Court as They Do Not Involve Questions of Law.

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs filed two appeals under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against orders of the Customs, Excis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows SFC's Claim for Priority Over Central Excise Dues in Recovery from Borrower's Assets. State Financial Corporation's Statutory Charge Under Section 29 of SFC Act, 1951 Prevails Over Crown Debt Under Central Excise Act, 1944.

The petitioner, SICOM Ltd., a State Financial Corporation established under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, advanced a term loan of Rs. 51...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Central Excise Case Due to Inordinate Delay and Lack of Sanction. Prosecution for Alleged Removal of Scrap Resistors Without Payment of Duty Fails as Complaint Filed After 4 Years and Sanction Under Section 9 of Central Excise Act, 1944 Not Obtained.

The judgment concerns two criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Criminal Case No....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Against Levy of Excise Duty on Fabrication and Construction of Structurals - Activities Do Not Amount to Manufacture Under Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Fabrication at site results in immovable property, not excisable goods.

The judgment concerns two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by M/s Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. and Ceat Tyres of India ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Time Limit for Availing Input Tax Credit Under Section 16(4) of CGST Act. The court held that the time limit is mandatory and not directory, and retrospective amendments are valid.

The Bombay High Court, in a batch of writ petitions, addressed the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 16(4) of the Central Goods an...