Gauhati High Court Directs Assistant Commissioner To Release Amount Of Interest On Delayed Excise Duty Refund To GAIL

The Gauhati High Court has directed that assistant commissioner to release the amount of interest on delayed excise duty refund to GAIL India.The bench of Justice Devashis Baruah has observed that the Division Bench writ petition, while disposing of the writ petition, held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not exclude a claim of refund made in terms of the notification dated 08.07.1999. The Division Bench observed and directed that the petitioners would be entitled to interest...

Manufacturing Of Aircrafts Parts Covered Under “Engineering Goods”, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty exemption is available on the manufacturing of aircraft parts.The bench of Sulekha Beevi.C.S. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) have observed that the engineering equipment would fall within the items that have been listed for exemption as per Notification No.10/97. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the very same issue and allowed the exemption, observing that the goods...

Chewing Tobacco Packed In High-Density Polyethylene Bags Are 'Wholesale Package'; Cannot Be Taxed As Retail Product Under Excise Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that pouches of chewing tobacco packed in High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags would be considered a 'wholesale package' and could not be considered for imposing excise duty as per the provisions relating to retail sale price in the Central Excise Act, 1944.The bench of Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal upheld the decision of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal which observed that chewing tobacco in HDPEs qualified as wholesale packages as they were sold only...

Black Sand Not A By-Product, Just A Waste; CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clearly erred in fastening the appellant with duty liability on black sand, which was not manufactured. The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees vs. Collector of Central Excise, in which it was held that in order to constitute goods, twin tests have to be satisfied, namely, the process constituting...

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.Section 33A of the Central Excise Act provides that opportunity of hearing be given to a party in a proceeding under the Act, if desired by them. Further, it lays down the procedure for granting adjournment in adjudication proceedings to either of the parties on the condition that a...

Labelling and Re-Labelling of Containers Qualifies as 'Manufacture' for CENVAT Credit Under Excise Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that labelling or re-labelling of containers amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act for availing cenvat creditThe bench of Justices A. S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was pronouncing its judgment on an appeal by the revenue under Section 35L(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a 2015 order passed by the CESTAT, Mumbai.By the impugned order, CESTAT has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent holding that as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central...

[United Provinces Excise Act 1910] Cancellation Of License Can't Be Due To Suspicion, Must Be Based On Cogent Material: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the cancellation of license under Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 cannot be based on suspicion. The Court held that without there being any cogent material or evidence such harsh penalty of cancellation of license must not be invoked.Section 34(2) of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 provides for cancellation of any license granted under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force relating to excise revenue or...

[Central Excise Act] Mandatory Pre-Deposit U/S 35F For Filing Appeal Before CESTAT Can't Be Waived In Writ Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that mandatory condition of pre-deposit prescribed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for filing appeals before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be waived under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Petitioner approached the High Court against the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Alternatively, petitioner prayed for waiver of mandatory pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central...

High Courts Can't Entertain Appeals On Determination Of Excise Duty Rate Or Value Of Goods For Assessment: Rajasthan High court

The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, has held that an appeal would lie to the High Court if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law; however, an appeal would not lie if the same pertains to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari and Justice Shubha Mehta has observed that SSI exemption for payment of central excise duty has...

GST & Central Excise Superintendent Has No Jurisdiction To Pass Order Exceeding Rs.10,00,000: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court has quashed the order by the GST and Central Excise Superintendent for lack of jurisdiction.The bench of Justice Alok Mathur has observed that according to the circular dated February 9, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and Department of Revenue, the power of the Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax, and Central Excise is limited to the matter not exceeding Rs. 10,00,000, and in the present case, the amount...

Income Tax Deduction Available On Excise Duty Claim As It Does Not Amount To Double Deduction: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that excise duty paid and included in the closing stock has to be claimed separately as a deduction; otherwise, the appellant would not be claiming the entire excise duty paid in the year of its payment. The bench of Justice K. R. Shriram and Justice Neela Gokhale has observed that Section 43B, which came to be introduced from Assessment Year 1984–1985 onwards, provides that the excise duty would be deductible only on a payment basis in the year in which it is...

Excise, Revenue And Other Departments Will Not Have Priority Over Secured Creditors: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that departments of the state, including excise and revenue, will not have priority over the secured creditors' debt.The bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya has observed that the dues of the secured creditor, i.e., the appellant bank, will have priority over the dues of the Central Excise Department, as even after the insertion of Section 11E in the Central Excise Act, 1944, w.e.f. April 8, 2011, and the provisions contained in...