Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)Indsur Global Ltd vs Union Of India & 2 on 27 November, 2014
"2. The brief facts are that the liability of the appellant for the
month of April, 2012 - payable by 5-3-2012 was Rs 10,10,590/-
whereas the Cenvat credit was utilized to the extent of Rs
7,10,590/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- through PLA. As such there was
short payment of about Rs. 2,00,000/-. Undisputedly, the
respondent had Rs 3,27,000/- lying in its Cenvat credit. Its
explanation was that there was an error in his computer system
which could be detected only later. The assessee paid the
balance amount of duty on 19-12-2012 together with interest.
Claiming that the assessee was bound to discharge full liability
on a month to month basis along with penalty and interest, the
assessing authorities sought to recover those amounts by
applying Rule 8(3A). The CESTAT by its impugned order noticed
that rule itself was declared unconstitutional and set aside in
Indsur Global Ltd. v. UOI - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 833 (Guj.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs The Union Of India on 27 March, 2015
In view of the said decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and
the clarification issued by the Board there seem to be nothing
wrong in the appellants discharging the defaulted duty liability as
per Rule 8 from their CENVAT account.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vidarbha vs Godavaridevi Saraf on 27 September, 1977
Therefore, unless a contrary
decision is given by any other competent Court, the Tribunal in
the State has to proceed with the decision of the other High
Court as it is the law of land and binding upon it. Nothing has
been shown to us as to why we should not follow the decision of
our Court in Valson Dyeing (supra) and Godavaridevi Saraf
(supra). No submission has been made before us as to why the
decision of the other High Courts declaring Rule 8(3A) of the
Central Excise Rules, 2002 unconstitutional, should not be
accepted by this Court."
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Beauty Dyers vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 20 December, 2001
which held that the Tribunal was justified in
following the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of
Beauty Dyers (supra). Once the provision has been declared
ultra vires by any High Court then one has to proceed on the
basis that the provision which has been declared as
unconstitutional is non-existent.
Malladi Drugs And Pharmaceutical ... vs The Union Of India on 15 December, 2021
Union Of India vs Indsur Global Ltd. on 10 October, 2017
In view of such clear distinction in facts, the modus adopted
in the said case in case of Indsur Global Ltd., (supra) cannot be
40 E/87220/2017
applied in the present case. The impugned tax demands and
show cause notice are set aside. Resultantly, all subsequent
actions, if any, taken by the department would be set at naught.
Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly.''