FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014"

Transcription

1 Cenvat Credit : If sales are on FOR basis, with risk being borne by manufacturer till delivery to customer and composite value of sales includes value of freight involved in delivery at customer's premises, place of removal would be at customer's premises and transport upto customer's premises would be eligible for credit CESTAT, NEW DELHI BENCH Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak JUSTICE G. RAGHURAM, PRESIDENT AND RAKESH KUMAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER FINAL ORDER NO /2014 APPEAL NO. E/58979 OF 2013 SEPTEMBER 3, 2014 Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, Valuation under Central Excise - Transaction Value - Place of Removal - Place of removal would depend upon specific transaction in issue - Where removal is pursuant to sales on FOR basis, with risk in goods manufactured being borne by manufacturer till delivery to customer at its premises and where composite value of sales include value of freight involved in delivery at customer's premises, place of removal would not be at factory gate, but at customer's premises [Para 11] [In favour of assessee] Rule 2(l), read with of the Rule 2(t), of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and section 4 of the Central Excise Act, CENVAT Credit - Input Service - Place of Removal - Assessee was liable to duty at specific rate based on weight - Since assessee's all sales were on FOR basis, with price inclusive of freight and ownership/risk getting transferred at customer's premises only, hence, assessee took credit of transportation services upto customer's premises, treating same as place of removal - Department argued that place of removal would be factory credit and transport beyond that was not eligible for credit - HELD : Since sales were on FOR basis, place of removal would be customer's premises - Hence, assessee had legitimately availed credit of service tax paid on freight charges borne for its FOR sales [Para 12] [In favour of assessee] Section 11A, read with of the 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 28 of the Customs Act, Recovery - Of duty or tax not levied/paid or short-levied/paid or erroneously refunded -

2 Adjudication of Demand - Paras 1 to 29 of adjudication order recorded facts and pleadings and paras 30 to 32 recorded conclusions without any analysis of facts - Even binding precedents relied upon by assessee were brushed aside without any analysis - HELD : A more casual and negligent approach to adjudication and disregard for binding precedents is perhaps difficult to replicate - Contribution of Adjudicating Authority was confined to paras 30 to 32, without any material contribution, in terms of analyses or reasons - In an adjudication order, verbiage and prolixity is no substitute for quality - Impugned order was wholly perverse and a sub-standard exhibit of adjudication - There was not even a scintilla of reason by Adjudicating Authority, for predicating bald conclusions - Adjudication and drafting of adjudication orders requires training; and incompetent departmental adjudication ill serves interests of State - Apart from accentuating appellate docket load, such casual orders contribute to faith deficit in process of departmental education and imperils due process of law - Hence, impugned order was set aside with costs of Rs. 2,500 and a copy of present judgment was directed to be sent to CBEC/Ministry of Finance for consideration [Paras 7 to 15] [In favour of assessee] Circulars and Notifications : Board Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated FACTS Facts The assessee is a manufacturer of cement. The assessee sold its final products on FOR basis to all customers. The freight charges are included in the assessable value of the final product, excise duty was discharged on the assessable value inclusive of freight charges, the transit risk in transportation of the final products is borne by the assessee and property in the goods passes to the customers on delivery at the customer's premises. The assessee contended that place of removal under section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was customer's premises; and, therefore outward transportation charges upto customer's premises were eligible for input service credit. The department denied credit of period May 2008 to January 2012, invoking extended period, on the ground that said services were availed after place of removal viz. factory gate and were ineligible for input service credit.

3 Issue Involved HELD Whether assessee was eligible for credit? The Adjudicating Authority viz. Commissioner stated that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions delineated in the Board Circular, in particular condition No. (iii), regarding submission of proof of freight charges being an integral part of the price of the goods. Conveniently, either by design or default, the Commissioner failed to advert to the specific contentions and the material evidence submitted by the assessee, while recording this wholly perverse conclusion. In adjudication order, the reference and reliance placed by assessee on the several precedents including the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2009] 20 STT 182 (Punj. & Har.) is brushed aside on the ground that these cases deal with a different matter and are not relevant to the instant case. A more casual and negligent approach to adjudication and disregard for binding precedents is perhaps difficult to replicate. [Para 7] Paras 1 to para 29 of the impugned order chronologically enumerate the facts relating to initiation of proceedings, contentions of the assessee, the case of the department and the defence by the assessee alongwith material marshaled and the precedents cited by the assessee, and reference to the Board Circular. The contribution of the learned Adjudicating Authority to the adjudication process is confined to paras 30 to 32. There is no material contribution, in terms of analyses or reasons. [Para 8] In an adjudication order, verbiage and prolixity is no substitute for quality. The conclusions recorded in paras 30 to 32 are bereft of any reasons. The impugned order is wholly perverse and a sub-standard exhibit of adjudication. Reasons are the links between the material on which conclusions are based and the conclusions. Mere recording of a conclusion in the impugned order, that the assessee had failed to fulfill the relevant conditions for treating its sales as on FOR basis and is consequently disentitled to claim Cenvat credit on the component of the freight charges incurred by treating the place of removal as the customer's premises, is a conclusion, as earlier noticed, wholly bereft of analysis and clearly contrary to the

4 material and evidence on record. [Para 9] The department's counsel was unable to identify even a scintilla of reason by the Adjudicating Authority, for predicating the bald conclusions set out in the impugned order. [Para 10] It was held in Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] (Chhattisgarh) that there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or its rules or in any Circular issued by the Board, that where Duty is charged on a specified rate, the place of removal would invariably be the factory gate. The place of removal would depend upon the specific transaction in issue and where the removal is pursuant to sales on FOR basis, with the risk in the goods manufactured being borne by the manufacturer till delivery to the customer at its premises and where the composite value of sales include the value of freight involved in delivery at the customer's premises, the place of removal would not be at the factory gate, but at the customer's premises, held the High Court. [Para 11] On the above premises and in the light of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) and the inter-partes judgment, of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), considered in the light of the clear and specific pleadings and the evidence marshaled by the assessee in support of its pleadings (to establish that the transactions of the assessee in the cement manufactured by it was all on FOR sales basis); the certificates issued by assessee's customers to this effect, the conclusion is irresistible that sales by the assessee were on FOR basis and, therefore, the assessee had legitimately availed Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on the freight charges borne for its FOR sales. [Para 12] Since the impugned order records conclusions without any analysis of the pleadings and the evidence on record, costs of Rs. 2,500/- were imposed to be remitted by revenue to the credit of the assessee, within 30 days from date of judgment. [Para 14] Adjudication and drafting of adjudication orders requires training; and incompetent departmental adjudication ill serves the interests of the State. Apart from accentuating the appellate docket load, such casual orders contribute to faith deficit in the process of departmental education and imperils the due process of law. The appropriate authorities may consider this pathology writ large in departmental adjudication. For this purpose, a copy of this judgment was marked to the Board of

5 Central Excise and Customs and to the Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, for consideration. [Para 15] CASE REVIEW Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor AIR 1974 S.C. 87 (para 9); Lafarge India Ltd. v. CCE 2014 (307) ELT 7 (Chhattisgarh) (para 11) and Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2009] (Punj. & Har.) (para 12) relied on. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] (Chhattisgarh) (para 11) followed. CASES REFERRED TO Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2009] 20 STT 182 (Punj. & Har.) (para 4), Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 8 STT 122 (New Delhi - CESTAT) (para 4), Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor AIR 1974 SC 87 (para 9), Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] 46 taxmann.com 304/46 GST 281 (New Delhi - CESTAT) (para 11), Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] 49 taxmann.com 469 (Chhattisgarh) (para 11) and Lafarge India Ltd. v. CCE 2014 (307) ELT 7 (Chhattisgarh) (para 11). Hemant Bajaj and B.L. Narasimhan, Advocates Representative (DR) for the Respondent. for the Appellant. M.S. Negi Authorised ORDER Justice G. Raghuram, President - Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/assessee and the learned AR for the respondent/revenue. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is disposed of after waiving pre-deposit, as the issue arising is covered by finding precedents. The appeal is preferred against the adjudication order dated 29/04/13 of the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak. The order disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,19,79,457/- availed by the assessee on outward transportation charges besides confirming levy and collection of interest and penalty as specified in the impugned order. 2. Two show cause notices dated 12/12/11 and 05/03/12 covering the periods May 2008 to January 2011 and February 2011 to January 2012, respectively, triggered the proceedings. The first show cause notice dated 12/12/11 invoked the extended period of limitation; the normal period under this show cause notice being December 2010 to January 2011, the prior period

6 being covered by the extended period. After due process the impugned adjudication order was passed. 3. The relevant facts :- The assessee is a manufacturer of cement, a commodity falling under Chapter 25 of the 1st Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, In response to the show cause notices, assessee specifically pleaded [recorded at paragraphs G & H of the impugned order], that the assessee sells its final products on FOR basis to all customers; that freight charges are included in the assessable value of the final product; that excise duty was discharged on the assessable value, inclusive of freight charges; that the transit risk, in transportation of the final products is borne by the assessee; that property in the goods passes to the customers on delivery at the customer's premises; that on the basis of these transactional facts, the place of removal under Section 4 (3) (c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was the customer's premises; and therefore availment of Cenvat credit was legitimate and unassailable. As noticed and adverted to in the impugned order, assessee not only pleaded that all its sales are on FOR basis and that duty was also remitted treating the place of removal as the customer's premises but further, that terms of the contract between the assessee and its customers expressly refers to the FOR basis of the sales. Para H.13 of the impugned order clearly records the plea and adverts to the transactional and other documents furnished by the assessee, including sample copies of declarations issued by customers, in substantiation of this contention. (Annexure V to the reply, to the show cause notices). 4. The assessee also relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India [2009] 20 STT 182, which reversed a contrary view expounded by this Tribunal in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 8 STT 122 (New Delhi - CESTAT). The Punjab & Haryana High Court answered the questions of law in favour of the assessee by holding that in case of FOR destination sales where the entire cost of freight is paid and borne by the manufacturer, the same would be an input service with the meaning of Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, The High Court also referred to Board Circular No. 97/8/2007-ST dated 23/08/2007, which was issued subsequent to the Tribunal judgment in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra). This Circular clarified [notwithstanding the Tribunal's view] as follows: It is, therefore, clear that for a manufacturer/consignor, the eligibility to avail credit of the service tax paid on the transportation during removal of excisable goods would depend upon the place of removal as per the definition. In case of a factory gate sale, sale from a non-duty paid warehouse, or from a duty paid depot (from where the excisable goods are sold, after their clearance from the factory), the determination of the 'place of removal' does not pose much problem. However, there may be situations where the manufacturer/consignor may claim that the sale has taken place at the destination point because in terms of the sale contract/agreement (i) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at

7 his door step; (ii) the seller bore the risk of loss of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination ; and (iii) the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation up to such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and the transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as also in terms of the provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930) occurred at the said place (Emphasis Added). 5. Though the Tribunal view in Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) stood expressly over-ruled by the High Court [which is also the Jurisdictional High Court, within whose territorial limits the Commissioner, Rohtak operates], para 26 of the impugned order, extensively adverts to the Tribunal judgment despite being sensitized to the fact that this judgment stood expressly overruled by the High Court. The impugned order in para 27 adverts to relevant provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; and in para 28 to the Board Circular dated 23rd August 2007 as well. 6. Paras 30 to 32 purport to set out the analyses and conclusions recorded by the learned Commissioner. Since, we find no analysis (of the material on record, furnished by the assessee in support of its contentions, adverted to in paragraphs G & H of the impugned order) except mere ipse-dixit conclusions recorded bereft of any reasons, we extract paragraphs 30 to 32 in full : "30. From the foregoing facts, it has been clearly proved that the party has failed to fulfill the conditions as enshrined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, i.e., regarding the place of removal. The above said Act nowhere mentions the consignee's doorstep as the place of removal and the fulfillment of the conditions of the Section 4 of the above said Act is sine qua non for being eligible for taking the Service Tax Credit on Outward GTA Services. Furthermore, the CBEC, vide their above said Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23/08/2007, has also explicitly laid down the following conditions for availment of the Service Tax CENVAT Credit on outward GTA Services : (i) (ii) (iii) the ownership of goods and the property in the goods remained with the seller of the goods till the delivery of the goods in acceptable condition to the purchaser at his doorstep ; The seller bore the risk of or damage to the goods during transit to the destination and ; the freight charges were an integral part of the price of goods.

8 31. In such cases, the credit of the service tax paid on the transportation upto such place of sale would be admissible if it can be established by the claimant of such credit that the sale and transfer of property in goods (in terms of the definition as under Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as also in terms of the provisions under the Sales of Goods Act, 1930), occurred at the said place. The party has also failed to fulfill the above said conditions, particularly; they have failed to fulfill the conditions no. (iii) Regarding the submission of the proof of the freight charges being an integral part of the price of the goods. In this way, the party has rendered themselves ineligible for taking the CENVAT Credit and the CENVAT Credit already taken by them, was inadmissible to them. 32. It has been clearly established from the foregoing facts that the party has violated the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 4 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and para 8.2 of the Circular No. 97/8/2007 dated 23/08/2007. The cases cited by the party, deal with a different matter and are not relevant to the instant case. The credit of Service Tax was not admissible to the party and they have taken the same illegally and clandestinely as the same was taken in violation of the above said Rules. I find that the party never disclosed to the Department the fact of availing CENVAT credit of service tax paid on outward freight. Had the audit party not visited the factory for audit of records this would never have come to the notice of the Department. As such extended period of five years is invokable under the provisions of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 for suppression the facts from the Department with intent to evade payment of duty. Further, I hold that wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,71,75,818/- and Rs. 1,48,03,639/- paid on goods for transportation of final product beyond the place of removal is recoverable from the party under the provisions of Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 alongwith interest under Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, In view of above, the party is also liable to penal action under Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 readwith Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 for violating the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and I hold accordingly." 7. In para 31, the order impugned states that the assessee failed to fulfill the conditions delineated in the Board Circular, in particular condition No. (iii), regarding submission of proof of freight charges being an integral part of the price of the goods. Conveniently, either by design or default, the learned Commissioner fails to advert to the specific contentions and the material evidence submitted by the assessee [noticed in paragraphs G & H earlier in the impugned order], while recording this wholly perverse conclusion. At para 32 of the order, the reference and reliance placed by assessee on the several precedents including the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) is brushed aside on the ground that these cases deal with a different matter and are not relevant to the instant case. A

9 more casual and negligent approach to adjudication and disregard for binding precedents is perhaps difficult to replicate. The impugned order records the operative portion, disallowing Cenvat credit and directing its recovery alongwith interest and penalty, in para Paras 1 to para 29 of the impugned order chronologically enumerate the facts relating to initiation of proceedings, contentions of the assessee, the case of the Department and the defence by the assessee alongwith material marshaled and the precedents cited by the assessee, and reference to the Board Circular. The contribution of the learned Adjudicating Authority to the adjudication process is confined to paras 30 to 32. As earlier noticed, there is no material contribution, in terms of analyses or reasons. 9. In an adjudication order, verbiage and prolixity is no substitute for quality. The conclusions recorded in paras 30 to 32 are bereft of any reasons. We are thus constrained to record that the impugned order is wholly perverse and a sub-standard exhibit of adjudication. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor AIR 1974 S.C. 87; Reasons are the links between the material on which conclusions are based and the conclusions. Mere recording of a conclusion in the impugned order, that the assessee had failed to fulfill the relevant conditions for treating its sales as on FOR basis and is consequently disentitled to claim Cenvat credit on the component of the freight charges incurred by treating the place of removal as the customer's premises, is a conclusion, as earlier noticed, wholly bereft of analysis and clearly contrary to the material and evidence on record. 10. Despite valiant efforts, learned AR was unable to identify even a scintilla of reason by the Adjudicating Authority, for predicating the bald conclusions set out in the impugned order. 11. In Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] 46 taxmann.com 304/46 GST 281 (New Delhi - CESTAT) [a judgment inter-partes], this Tribunal, following earlier judgments including the judgment in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra), ruled that in cases where the duty on the final product is levied at a specific rate or on ad-valorem rate but the value determined on the basis of MRP under Section 4A or on tariff value fixed under Section 3 (2), the place of removal would be the factory gate. This judgment was reversed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CCE [2014] 49 taxmann.com 469 (Chhattisgarh). The High Court followed its earlier decision in Lafarge India Ltd. v. CCE 2014 (307) E.L.T. 7 (Chhattisgarh). The High Court clearly ruled that there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or its rules or in any Circular issued by the Board, that where Duty is charged on a specified rate, the place of removal would invariably be the factory gate. The place of removal would depend upon the specific transaction in issue and where the removal is pursuant to sales on FOR basis, with the risk in the goods manufactured being borne by the manufacturer till delivery to the customer at its premises and where the composite value of sales include the value of freight involved in

10 delivery at the customer s premises, the place of removal would not be at the factory gate, but at the customer s premises, held the High Court. 12. On the above premises and in the light of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. (supra) and the inter-partes judgment, of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Ultratech Cement Ltd. (supra), considered in the light of the clear and specific pleadings and the evidence marshaled by the assessee in support of its pleadings (to establish that the transactions of the assessee in the cement manufactured by it was all on FOR sales basis); the certificates issued by assessee s customers to this effect and adverted to in paragraphs H.13 of the impugned order, the conclusion is irrestible that sales by the assessee were on FOR basis and therefore the assessee had legitimately availed Cenvat credit on the service tax paid on the freight charges borne for its FOR sales. 13. On the above analysis, the impugned order dated 29/04/13 passed by the learned Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. 14. Since the impugned order as analyzed by us in detail earlier, records conclusions without any analysis of the pleadings and the evidence on record, we consider it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred), to be remitted by Revenue to the credit of the assessee, within 30 days from today. 15. We are also constrained to observe that adjudication and drafting of adjudication orders requires training; and incompetent departmental adjudication ill serves the interests of the State. Apart from accentuating the appellate docket load, such casual orders contribute to faith deficit in the process of departmental education and imperils the due process of law. The appropriate authorities may consider this pathology writ large in departmental adjudication. For this purpose, we direct that a copy of this judgment be marked to the Board of Central Excise and Customs and to the Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, for consideration. 16. The appeal is allowed as above, with costs as indicated.

2014-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-DEL

2014-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-DEL 2014-TIOL-1934-CESTAT-DEL IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST BLOCK NO 2, R K PURAM, NEW DELHI 110066 PRINCIPAL BENCH COURT NO I Excise Appeal No.58979 of 2013 Arising out of

More information

Central Excise Duty on free Samples

Central Excise Duty on free Samples Central Excise Duty on free Samples 1. Introduction: There is no specific provision in Central Excise Rules, 2002 governing drawl and testing of samples of manufactured goods or inputs to ascertain their

More information

Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law. Amendments relating to Central Excise

Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law. Amendments relating to Central Excise Amendments made in Indirect-Tax Law Amendments relating to Central Excise 1. Amendment of section 3A In the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act), in

More information

KSJ Metal Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Under Secretary (Cus.), M.F. (D.R.) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 199 (Mad.) (para

KSJ Metal Impex (P.) Ltd. v. Under Secretary (Cus.), M.F. (D.R.) [2013] 40 taxmann.com 199 (Mad.) (para Excise & Customs : Where refund of SAD duty under exemption Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was granted belatedly, assessee was eligible for interest on belated refund under section 27A of Customs Act,

More information

CHAPTER 13 DEMAND NOTICE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ADJUDICATION, INTEREST, PENALTY, CONFISCATION, SEIZURE, DUTY PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST PART I

CHAPTER 13 DEMAND NOTICE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ADJUDICATION, INTEREST, PENALTY, CONFISCATION, SEIZURE, DUTY PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST PART I CHAPTER 13 DEMAND NOTICE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ADJUDICATION, INTEREST, PENALTY, CONFISCATION, SEIZURE, DUTY PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST 1. Introduction PART I DEMAND NOTICE/SHOW CAUSE NOTICE 1.1 In accordance with

More information

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] [TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) Notification No. 20/2017 - Central Excise (N.T.)

More information

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] [TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) Notification No. 19/2017 - Central Excise (N.T.)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : EXCISE ACT, 1944 CENTRAL EXCISE ACT CASE NOS. 48/2012 & 49/2012 Date of decision: 2nd August, 2013 HINDUSTAN INSECTICIEDES LTD.... Appellant Through Mr.

More information

CM No.22555/2015 (Exemption) 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of.

CM No.22555/2015 (Exemption) 3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application stands disposed of. $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 21. + CUSAA 20/2015 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM... Appellant Through: Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel. versus RISO INDIA PVT. LTD.... Respondent

More information

Hindalco.Industries.Limited. C.C.E..&.S.Tax,.Vadodara.II. OIA.No.PJ/39/.VDR.II/ dated C.C.E.Cus.&.S.Tax,.(Appeals).Vadodara. 5.. E/1

Hindalco.Industries.Limited. C.C.E..&.S.Tax,.Vadodara.II. OIA.No.PJ/39/.VDR.II/ dated C.C.E.Cus.&.S.Tax,.(Appeals).Vadodara. 5.. E/1 CUSTOMS.EXCISE.&.SERVICE.TAX.APPELLATE.TRIBUNAL,. West.Zonal.Bench,.O-20,.NMH.Compound. Ahmedabad. Serial.No.. Appeal.No.. Appellant. Respondent. Arising.out.of.the.OIA/OIO.No..&.date. Passed.by.. 1..

More information

order imposes the following restrictions on the petitioner:-

order imposes the following restrictions on the petitioner:- THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2010 + WP(C) 14152/2009 & CM 16314/2009 VINAY WIRES AND POLY PRODUCTS PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY H P KANODIA... Petitioner

More information

Appeals and Revision. Chapter XVIII

Appeals and Revision. Chapter XVIII Chapter XVIII Appeals and Revision Sections 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority 108. Powers of Revisional Authority 109. Constitution of Appellate Tribunal and Benches thereof 110. President and Members

More information

CUSTOM EXCIE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. CA. PIYUSH.S. CHHAJED.FCA., DISA Chartered Accountant

CUSTOM EXCIE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. CA. PIYUSH.S. CHHAJED.FCA., DISA Chartered Accountant CUSTOM EXCIE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CA. PIYUSH.S. CHHAJED.FCA., DISA Chartered Accountant Introduction The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) was formerly the Customs,

More information

HIGH COURT RULING (CENTRAL EXCISE)

HIGH COURT RULING (CENTRAL EXCISE) 2016-TIOL-1876-HC-TRIPURA-CX HIGH COURT RULING (CENTRAL EXCISE) Dharampal Premchand Ltd (Agartala Unit) Vs UoI (Dated: January 8, 2016) CX - NE exemption - Notification 11/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 is hit

More information

Q. 1 - State the procedure for registration of manufacture under the Central Excise Act. (May 2008, May 2005)

Q. 1 - State the procedure for registration of manufacture under the Central Excise Act. (May 2008, May 2005) Q. 1 - State the procedure for registration of manufacture under the Central Excise Act. (May 2008, May 2005) Registration (Central Excise): A. Rule 9 of Central Excise Rules,2002 gives procedure for Registration.-

More information

Appeal, Review and Settlement of Cases

Appeal, Review and Settlement of Cases 1. Introduction: Chapter 31 Appeal, Review and Settlement of Cases 1.1 Like any other taxation statue, the Customs Act contains detailed provisions for judicial review, for resolution of disputes, by way

More information

14), Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No of 2011, dated ]

14), Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India [Writ Petition No of 2011, dated ] Excise & Customs : Since notification issued under rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not provide any period of limitation for a claim for rebate, rebate claim cannot be dismissed as time-barred

More information

The Central Excise Act, 1944

The Central Excise Act, 1944 The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Act No. 1 of 1944] Chapter II Levy & Collection of Duty An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Central Duties of Excise [24th February, 1944] Section 3. Duties

More information

CENTRAL EXCISE CIRCULAR

CENTRAL EXCISE CIRCULAR CENTRAL EXCISE CIRCULAR -COPY OF- CIRCULAR NO.889/09/2009-CX. Dated 21 st May, 2009 F.No.275/40/2009-CX.8A Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue (Central Board of Excise & Customs)

More information

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] Notification No. 01 /2010-Clean Energy Cess New Delhi, the 22 nd June, 2010 G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 83 of the Finance Act, 2010 (14 of 2010),

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CRL.M.C. 4102/2011 Judgment delivered on:9th December, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CRL.M.C. 4102/2011 Judgment delivered on:9th December, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 CRL.M.C. 4102/2011 Judgment delivered on:9th December, 2011 SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN & ORS... Petitioner Through : Mr.Sidhartha Luthra,

More information

1 902.CEXA doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

1 902.CEXA doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION sbw 1 902.CEXA115.14.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.115 OF 2014 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.120 OF 2014 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE

More information

Highlights of Union Budget relating to Indirect Taxes

Highlights of Union Budget relating to Indirect Taxes Highlights of Union Budget 2018-19 relating to Indirect Taxes CUSTOMS Amendments to be effective from 2 nd February, 2018 A social welfare surcharge at 10% of the aggregate customs duties has been levied

More information

JUDGMENT. (Hon ble Arijit Pasayat, J.) Leave granted.

JUDGMENT. (Hon ble Arijit Pasayat, J.) Leave granted. 2009 NTN (Vol. 40) [IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Hon ble Arijit Pasayat & Hon ble Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 5166 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2006 Benara Valves Ltd. & Others

More information

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) Notification No. 17/2014-Central Excise (N. T.) G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers

More information

Adjudication and appeals. R. Krishnan Advocate supreme court (Customs, excise and service tax)

Adjudication and appeals. R. Krishnan Advocate supreme court (Customs, excise and service tax) Adjudication and appeals R. Krishnan Advocate supreme court (Customs, excise and service tax) Adjudication and appeals in indirect taxes Procedure in customs/ excise and service tax different from direct

More information

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.59 OF 2011

sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.59 OF 2011 1 cexa-59-11++ sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.59 OF 2011 M/s. Orange City Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ] (formerly M/s. Saggu Castings Pvt.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

BUDGET ANALYSIS All right Reserved with Bizsolindia Services Pvt. Ltd.

BUDGET ANALYSIS All right Reserved with Bizsolindia Services Pvt. Ltd. CUSTOMS ACT 1962 CUSTOMS ACT 1962 : Clause of 54 Any of Customs Act Wording of import manifest and export manifest has been renamed as arrival manifest or import manifest and departure manifest or export

More information

640 KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE [Vol. 49 First of all let us go through this amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, It reads as under: Section 35F. T

640 KNOWLEDGE RESOURCE [Vol. 49 First of all let us go through this amended Section 35F of Central Excise Act, It reads as under: Section 35F. T Amended Section 35F of C. Ex. Act, some judicial interpretations and some circulars for clarification A Study Sagar Mal Pareek* The issue of mandatory deposit of certain per cent of amount of dispute at

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. WRIT PETITION No.37514/2017 (T-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU BEFORE. THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. WRIT PETITION No.37514/2017 (T-RES) 1/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22 nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI BETWEEN: WRIT PETITION No.37514/2017 (T-RES) XL HEALTH CORPORATION INDIA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR. W.P. No & W.P.Nos /2012(T-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR. W.P. No & W.P.Nos /2012(T-RES) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 05 TH DAY OF JUNE 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR W.P. No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012(T-RES) BETWEEN: Weir BDK Valves, A Unit

More information

Workshop on Adjudication and Appellate Procedures-Service Tax law-the Institute

Workshop on Adjudication and Appellate Procedures-Service Tax law-the Institute Workshop on Adjudication and Appellate Procedures-Service Tax law-the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Drafting Reply to Show Cause Notice, appearance before adjudicating authorities and Cross Examination:

More information

Demand, Adjudication and Offences

Demand, Adjudication and Offences 8.1 Demand 8 Demand, Adjudication and Offences The word demand as per Black s Law Dictionary means assertion of a legal right; an imperative request preferred by one person to another, under a claim of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2017 VERSUS J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS OF 2017 VERSUS J U D G M E N T 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 18300-18305 OF 2017 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS M/S. SANJIVANI

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No of 2018) 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3873 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.32456 of 2018) Sevoke Properties Ltd. Appellant Versus West Bengal State

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE. versus $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8444/2011 Date of Decision: 29 th September, 2015 REHABILITATION MINISTRY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY... Petitioner Through Mr.

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, Judgment reserved on : Judgment delivered on : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 Judgment reserved on : 19.08.2008 Judgment delivered on : 09.01.2009 STR Nos. 5/1989 THE COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX... Appellant

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner.

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2010 + WP (C) 11932/2009 M/S MITSUBISHI CORPORATION INDIA P. LTD Petitioner - versus THE VALUE ADDED TAX OFFICER & ANR... Respondent

More information

GST/ IDT Case Law Update 4

GST/ IDT Case Law Update 4 GST/ IDT Case Law Update 4 Credit shall be allowed on the stock of coal on which Clean Energy Cess has been paid in the erstwhile law and thus payment of Compensation Cess under GST shall not be required

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. AA No.396/2007. Date of decision: December 3, Vs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. AA No.396/2007. Date of decision: December 3, Vs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 AA No.396/2007 Date of decision: December 3, 2007 AKG Associates Through: Mr.Rajiv Kumar, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

2015-TIOL-820-HC-MAD-CX IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. Writ Appeal No. 821 of 2012 MP No. 1 of 2012

2015-TIOL-820-HC-MAD-CX IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. Writ Appeal No. 821 of 2012 MP No. 1 of 2012 V Ramasubramanian & P R Shivakumar, JJ 2015-TIOL-820-HC-MAD-CX IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Writ Appeal No. 821 of 2012 MP No. 1 of 2012 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE POONAMALLEE RANGE I POONAMALLEE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8379 OF 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8379 OF 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8379 OF 2008 1. Vodafone Essar South Ltd., ) a company incorporated under ) the Companies Act, 1956 having ) its

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO. 1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR C.S.T.A.NO.7/2014 BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER

More information

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgement delivered on: 2 nd December, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 2467/2015 PRADIP BURMAN Represented by: Versus... Petitioner Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate with Mr.

More information

COMMODITIES TRANSACTION TAX

COMMODITIES TRANSACTION TAX 34 (c) the form and the manner of issuing the acknowledgement of discharge of tax dues under sub-section (7) of section 97; (d) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed, or in respect of

More information

(i) stainless steel pattis or pattas Thirty thousand rupees

(i) stainless steel pattis or pattas Thirty thousand rupees Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs New Delhi Notification No. 17/2007-Central Excise Dated 1st March, 2007 G.S.R. (E).- In exercise of the powers

More information

Through : Sh. J.K. Mittal and Sh. Vipul Dubey, Advocates.

Through : Sh. J.K. Mittal and Sh. Vipul Dubey, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : FINANCE ACT, 1994 Reserved on: 26.05.2014 Pronounced on : 04.08.2014 W.P.(C) 3774/2013, C.M. NO.7065/2013 TRAVELITE (INDIA)... Petitioner Through : Sh.

More information

1 Basic Concepts of Central Excise

1 Basic Concepts of Central Excise Star Rating On the basis of Maximum marks from a chapter On the basis of Questions included every year from a chapter On the basis of Compulsory questions from a chapter Nil Nil 1 Basic Concepts of Central

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 21790 OF 2017 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 28685/2015) FEDERATION OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA

More information

APPEAL, REVIEW & REVISION:

APPEAL, REVIEW & REVISION: FIRST APPEAL CCE (APPEALS) or CESTAT APPEAL, REVIEW & REVISION: 1 Write a short note on the Appellate Remedies to assessee (right of appeal to persons aggrieved by order passed by adjudicating authority)

More information

$~21 to 34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 4304/2018 & CM APPL.16759/2018

$~21 to 34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 4304/2018 & CM APPL.16759/2018 $~21 to 34 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 01.10.2018 + W.P.(C) 4304/2018 & CM APPL.16759/2018 SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN 22 + W.P.(C) 4305/2018 & CM APPL.16760/2018 SURENDRA KUMAR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CRL M C 656/2005 and CRL M A 2217/2005. Reserved on: January 17, Date of decision: February 8, 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. CRL M C 656/2005 and CRL M A 2217/2005. Reserved on: January 17, Date of decision: February 8, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 CRL M C 656/2005 and CRL M A 2217/2005 Reserved on: January 17, 2008 Date of decision: February 8, 2008 SHAKUN MOOLCHANDANI...Petitioner

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Petitioners : WP(C) No.3049 of 2006 1. M/s. Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 150 OF versus WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 150 OF versus WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NO. 150 OF 2006 Madras Bar Association Union of India and another versus WITH Petitioner(s) Respondents

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.31/2011 DATE OF DECISION : 22nd February, 2011 SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESH CARGO MOVERS AND CONSULTANTS... Appellant Through:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Deva

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Deva IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD Special Civil Application No.13641 of 2015 AUTOMARK INDUSTRIES (I) LTD Vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND 3 Harsha Devani & A G Uraizee, JJ Appellants Rep by: Mr SN Soparkar,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER DECIDED ON : 19th March, 2012 LPA. 802/2003 CM.A /2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER DECIDED ON : 19th March, 2012 LPA. 802/2003 CM.A /2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER DECIDED ON : 19th March, 2012 LPA. 802/2003 CM.A. 17440/2010 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Through : Mr.Manish Garg, Advocate....Appellant

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3650 OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3650 OF 2014 sbw *1* 901.wp3650.14 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Coca Cola India Private Limited Versus The Assistant Registrar representing The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

More information

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 181 of 2017 1 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COMPANY APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Arising out of Order dated 27 th July, 2017 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai

More information

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act

THE COURTS ACT. Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act THE COURTS ACT Rules made by the Chief Justice, after consultation with the Rules Committee and the Judges, under section 198 of the Courts Act 1. Title These rules may be cited as the Supreme Court (International

More information

COURT NO. 2, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 140 OF 2009

COURT NO. 2, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 140 OF 2009 COURT NO. 2, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 140 OF 2009 O.A. No. 140/2009 IN THE MATTER OF:...Applicant Through : Mr. P.D.P. Deo with Ms. Monica Nagi, counsels for the Applicant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF APRIL 2015 PRESENT THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET SARAN AND THE HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO.57422 OF 2013 (CESTAT)

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 4th December, 2012 MAC. APP. 1165/2012 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate....

More information

Bar & Bench ( IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Bar & Bench (  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10577 OF 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 16836 of 2018) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST VERSUS APPELLANT(S)

More information

GST. By CA. B S Mylar. FCA. C A B.S.Mylar B.Com. FCA

GST. By CA. B S Mylar. FCA. C A B.S.Mylar B.Com. FCA GST By CA. B S Mylar. FCA 1 2 Miscellaneous Provisions Common Portal Sec 146 3 Sec 146 r/w Notification No 04/2017 www.gst.gov.in for facilitating 1. Registration, 2. Payment of tax, 3. Furnishing of returns,

More information

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2003 NTN 22) [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 2003 (Vol. 22) - 330 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble R.B. Misra, J. Trade Tax Revision No. 677 of 2000 M/s Rotomac Electricals Private Limited, Noida vs. Trade Tax Tribunal and others Date of Decision :

More information

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD.

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD. COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS Vs. M/S. ADISON & CO. LTD. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 7906 of 2002 Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Versus

More information

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013. Versus

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013. Versus * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1089/2013 & CM No.2073/2013 SETU NIKET Versus Pronounced on: 19.11.2015... Petitioner Through: Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Adv. UNION OF INDIA & ORS... Respondents

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 6641 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29268 OF 2016 INDIAN BANK & ANR... Appellants VERSUS K

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL Nos OF Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL Nos.9118-9119 OF 2010 Surat Singh (Dead).Appellant(s) VERSUS Siri Bhagwan & Ors. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar

More information

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c): Initiation, Satisfaction & Levy The Unwritten Mandates

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c): Initiation, Satisfaction & Levy The Unwritten Mandates 543 Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c): Initiation, Satisfaction & Levy The Unwritten Mandates Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 prescribes two faults or omissions which exposes the assessee to concealment

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL Date of decision: 29th November, 2012 MAC.APP. 76/2012 RAJINDER KUMAR Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.... Appellant

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Decision: 11 th March, 2010

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Decision: 11 th March, 2010 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1702/2010 Date of Decision: 11 th March, 2010 PAVITRA GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr. L.B. Rai & Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, Advocates

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. RFA No. 581/2003. DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RFA No. 581/2003 DATE OF DECISION : 13th March, 2012 M/S B.R.METAL CORPN. & ORS. Appellants Through : Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate

More information

Dos and Donts during the Assessment Proceedings

Dos and Donts during the Assessment Proceedings Dos and Donts during the Assessment Proceedings PRESENTED BY CA Atul C. Bheda FCA, LLB(GEN), DISA(ICA). Appearing Before AO Receiving Notice Check validity of notice with regard to (i) Section, (ii) Time

More information

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 966/Chd/2014 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) The D.C.I.T.,

More information

24 Appeals and Revision

24 Appeals and Revision 24 Appeals and Revision The assessee is given a right of appeal by the Act where he feels aggrieved by the order of the assessing authority. However, the assessee has no inherent right of appeal unless

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

CA Final Paper 7 Direct Tax Laws Chapter 24 CA.Aseem Chawla / CA. Anuj Mathur

CA Final Paper 7 Direct Tax Laws Chapter 24 CA.Aseem Chawla / CA. Anuj Mathur CA Final Paper 7 Direct Tax Laws Chapter 24 CA.Aseem Chawla / CA. Anuj Mathur 1 Understanding Basic Framework of Appellate Remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961 Understanding procedure and aspects relating

More information

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS ON CENTRAL TAXES BILL, 2007

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS ON CENTRAL TAXES BILL, 2007 1 TO BE INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA Bill No. 99 of 2007 THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS ON CENTRAL TAXES BILL, 2007 A BILL to provide for the constitution of an Authority for Advance Rulings on Central Taxes

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010. % Date of decision: 6 th December, Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL SCHOOL & ORS. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) NO.4707/2010 % Date of decision: 6 th December, 2010 SRISHTI SOLKAR & ANR. Through:... Petitioners Mr. U.M. Tripathi, Advocate Versus MAHAVIR SR. MODEL

More information

income tax procedure starts with the Assessee filing Return of income. The first stage after the filing of Return of income is the Assessement of the

income tax procedure starts with the Assessee filing Return of income. The first stage after the filing of Return of income is the Assessement of the INTRODUCTION The income tax procedure starts with the Assessee filing Return of income. The first stage after the filing of the Return of income is the Assessement of the same by the Assessing Authorities.

More information

-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU -: 1 :- R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA WRIT PETITION NOs.10559-10560/2015 (T-TAR) C/w. W.P.NO.54017/2014

More information

UNDUE HARDSHIP. (S. Jaikumar & G. Natarajan, Advocates)

UNDUE HARDSHIP. (S. Jaikumar & G. Natarajan, Advocates) UNDUE HARDSHIP (S. Jaikumar & G. Natarajan, Advocates) Which is the deadliest scare in any indirect tax case? Is it the duty demanded or penalty imposed or the interest charged? For us, it would be the

More information

Arbitration 187 This Arbitration was governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Contract type - GTA FOB Contract No.

Arbitration 187 This Arbitration was governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Contract type - GTA FOB Contract No. Arbitration 187 This Arbitration was governed by the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Contract type - GTA FOB Contract No. 1 Date of Issue: January 2014 Claimant: & Respondent: Export FOB seller

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 2015 WITH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 2015 WITH 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Sunbel Alloys Co. of India Ltd. Versus The Union of India & Ors. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.279 OF 2015 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.179

More information

TENDER FORM Controller of Stores, HIMACHAL PRADESH (INSTRUCTION TO TENDERERS)

TENDER FORM Controller of Stores, HIMACHAL PRADESH (INSTRUCTION TO TENDERERS) TENDER FORM Controller of Stores, HIMACHAL PRADESH (INSTRUCTION TO TENDERERS) ANNEXURE II 1. Quotations must be enclosed in a properly sealed envelope addressed to the Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh

More information

F. No. 96/54/2014 CX.1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs

F. No. 96/54/2014 CX.1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs F. No. 96/54/2014 CX.1 Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise & Customs Circular No. 1009/16/2015 CX To Principal Chief Commissioner/ Chief Commissioner of

More information

4%1 Ti. /Circular NO. 02/2016-CCEIII

4%1 Ti. /Circular NO. 02/2016-CCEIII 311T4T1671 31-64=1-TWq-111 COMMISSIONERATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX AHMEDABAD-III 7149. CUSTOMS HOUSE, 3WT-41-aftWRiNEAR.ALL INDIA RADIO,.ic1 SIT AHMEDABAD-380009 NAVARANGAPURA, Tele:27545100/ Fax-27543676

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY. WP(C) No.19753/2004. Order reserved on : Date of Decision: August 21, 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY. WP(C) No.19753/2004. Order reserved on : Date of Decision: August 21, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : GRATUITY WP(C) No.19753/2004 Order reserved on : 18.7.2006. Date of Decision: August 21, 2006 Delhi Transport Corporation through The Chairman I.P.Estate,

More information

The last date for submission of the bids is at

The last date for submission of the bids is at Government of India Office of the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax (Audit) :: Patna 3 rd Floor, Central Revenue Building (Annexe), Birchand Patel Path, Patna - 01 Notice for inviting Tender for

More information

CONTENTS DIVISION ONE BASIC CONCEPTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & BASIC CONCEPT 3 CHAPTER 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 56

CONTENTS DIVISION ONE BASIC CONCEPTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & BASIC CONCEPT 3 CHAPTER 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 56 CONTENTS DIVISION ONE BASIC CONCEPTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & BASIC CONCEPT 3 CHAPTER 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 56 CHAPTER 3 TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS 63 CHAPTER 4 MEANING & SCOPE OF SUPPLY AND LEVY OF

More information

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2012 NTN 49)-208 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]

A FORTNIGHTLY VAT/GST LAW REPORTER 2012 NTN 49)-208 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] 2012 (Vol. 49)-208 [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. Sales/Trade Tax Revision No. - 219 of 2012 Yuvraj Trading Company vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax, U. P. Date of Decision : 2 nd April,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. WRIT PETITION Nos /2015 (T-RES)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. WRIT PETITION Nos /2015 (T-RES) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR WRIT PETITION Nos.8854-8874/2015 (T-RES) BETWEEN: M/S.PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS

More information

THE LEVY SUGAR PRICE EQUALISATION FUND ACT 1976 [ACT No. 31 OF 1976]

THE LEVY SUGAR PRICE EQUALISATION FUND ACT 1976 [ACT No. 31 OF 1976] THE LEVY SUGAR PRICE EQUALISATION FUND ACT 1976 [ACT No. 31 OF 1976] (16th February 1976) (As amended by Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act No. 54 of 1984) dated 23-8-1984) An

More information

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015

THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, 2015 AS PASSED BY LOK SABHA ON 11 MAY, Bill No. 84-C of THE BLACK MONEY (UNDISCLOSED FOREIGN INCOME AND ASSETS) AND IMPOSITION OF TAX BILL, ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES CHAPTER I CLAUSES PRELIMINARY 1. Short title,

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT. 1. The question of law which arises for decision in this appeal is:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. versus MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT. 1. The question of law which arises for decision in this appeal is: * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 799/2005 Reserved on: 13.02.2018 Pronounced on: 20.02.2018 SALORA INTERNATIONAL LTD., N. DELHI... Appellant Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor and Mr. Sumit Lalchandani,

More information

Mr. V. Sridharan Senior Counsel with Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Appellant.

Mr. V. Sridharan Senior Counsel with Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the Appellant. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 101 OF 2014 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2014 WITH CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2014

More information