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...

Calcutta High Court Quashes Ex Parte Order Imposing Excise Duty On Incineration Of Lean Gas Used In Generation Of Electricity

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the ex parte order imposing excise duty on the incineration of lean gas used in the generation of electricity.The bench of Justice Md. Nizamuddin has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority concerned to pass a fresh adjudication order by allowing the petitioner to file an objection against the adjudication order by treating it as show cause notice and to take all the points raised in this writ petition.The issue raised was whether lean gas or...

Supreme Court Affirms Penalty On 'Zarda' Manufacturers For Misclassifying Product As 'Chewing Tobacco' For Central Excise Duty

The Supreme Court while adjudicating a matter wherein the Assesssee deliberately misclassified the ‘Zarda’ produced by it as ‘Chewing Tobacco’ for evading payment of a high duty as applicable to ‘Zarda’, has affirmed the imposition of penalty and demand for payment of differential duty raised by the Central Excise Department from the Assessee.The Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, has held that, “The assessee being aware that there being no change in the nature...

Delhi High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To Process Blackberry’s Claim Of Interest Under Section 11BB Of The Excise Act

The Delhi High Court has directed the adjudicating authority to process Blackberry’s claim of interest under Section 11BB of the Excise Act.The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that there is no cavill that the petitioner would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Excise Act from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of an application for a refund if it is not processed within the said period of three...

Excise Act | Meghalaya High Court Upholds Order Granting Interest To Assessee On Refund Of Deposit Made 'Under Protest' During Investigation

The Meghalaya High Court on Wednesday upheld the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granting interest on the delayed refund of a deposit made by the assessee under protest, during investigation for allegedly claiming excess cenvat credit.Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which bars payment of interest for refund of duty or interest will not be attracted to this case...

Mere Pendency Of An Appeal Would Not Detract From The Excise Duty Refund Demand: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the mere pendency of an appeal or an order of stay that may operate would not detract from the obligation of any person claiming a refund to make an application within the period prescribed and computed with reference to the "relevant date"."We do so observe in light of the indubitable principle that an order of stay that may operate in an appeal does not efface the demand or the obligation of refund that may have sprung into existence. It merely places the...

Self-Assessment Of Assessee Not Rendered Malafide Merely Because It Was Based On A CETSTAT View Which Was Later Overturned : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the Ahmedabad bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by holding the demand for differential excise duty raised against the assessee, M/s Reliance Industries Ltd, as time barred.The court dismissed the contention that Reliance had deliberately suppressed and withheld material information and documents from the departmental officers by not filing the same and thus, the ground for invoking the extended period of...

Excise Commissioner Is Duty Bound To Cancel Liquor Licence On The Application Of Legal Heirs Of The Deceased: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench has held that when the legal heirs of the deceased license holder applied for cancellation, the excise commissioner was duty-bound to cancel it.The bench of Justice Bharat P. Deshpande has observed that the transfer of liquor licenses is at the discretion of the concerned authority.The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Excise, who canceled the liquor license for the retail sale of IMFL and CL for consumption standing in the name of the...

Mere Broad-Basing Of Entries Under Central Excise Tariff Act, Cannot Justify Re-Classification, Without Change In Nature, Character Or Use Of The Product: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the classification of a product under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, cannot be changed merely on the ground of change of tax structure or tariff entries, without showing a change in the nature and character of a product or a change in the use of the product(Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Hyderabad vs Ashwani Homeo Pharmacy).The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwar and Vikram Nath was dealing with an appeal against the decision of the...

Central Excise Act- No Separate Notice Necessary For Recovery Of Erroneous Refund Granted: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that no separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is necessary for the recovery of an erroneous refund granted.The division bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari has observed that once the order originally sanctioning the refund came to be set aside, there was no question of any further notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.The issue raised was whether the separate notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is...