Search Results for "Section 11AB"

26 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 26 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition Challenging Settlement Commission's Order on Maintainability of Settlement Application Under Section 32E of Central Excise Act, 1944 — Holds That Order of Adjudication Is Made on Date of Dispatch, Not Date of Signing

The petitioner, M/s. Vishnu Steels, a manufacturer of excisable goods, challenged an order of the Settlement Commission dismissing its application und...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against Predeposit Order in Central Excise Valuation Dispute. CESTAT's direction to deposit Rs. 1 crore set aside as assessee had strong prima facie case on valuation under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant, Jabil Circuit India Private Limited, is a manufacturer of set-top boxes. It sold these boxes to Thomson Holdings India Private Limited ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Revenue's Appeal in Central Excise Case — Limitation Bar Upheld. Show Cause Notice Issued After Six Years Held Time-Barred as Assessee Did Not Suppress Facts.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa, filed an appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, against the order of the Customs, Excise a...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee's Appeal in Central Excise Case — Stabilisation of Crude Oil Not 'Manufacture' Under Central Excise Act, 1944. The process of stabilising crude oil on process platforms does not amount to manufacture and stabilised crude oil is not excisable goods.

The appellant, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), operates oil wells and process platforms in Mumbai Offshore. The extracted gas-oil mix ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against CESTAT Predeposit Order in Central Excise Valuation Dispute. The Court held that the Tribunal must consider prima facie case, balance of convenience, and financial hardship while deciding waiver of predeposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

The appellant, Hyva (India) Private Limited, is engaged in body building on motor vehicle chassis supplied by Tata Motors Limited. Tata Motors clears ...