Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Dharti Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 29 August, 2018
cites
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Commissioner Of Cent.Excise, ... vs M/S. Karnataka Agro Chemicals on 15 May, 2008
(iii) whether the word 'essential' in Note 6 in
Chapter Heading 3105 means 'predominant'?, (iv) whether the
term 'essential constituent' in Note 6 can be construed as 'essential
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 22:57:57 :::
17
wp1176.17.odt
character'?, and (v) whether any such interpretation is legal, valid
or permissible in law and so on? It is a matter of appreciation of
oral and documentary evidence, the opinion of Experts, their
cross-examination, if any. All these questions need to be decided in
the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, leave all
such questions to be decided by the Adjudicating Authority, as was
done by the Apex Court by its decision in the case of Commissioner
of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals, reported
in (2008) 7 SCC 343, relied upon by Shri S.N. Bhattad, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.1, and we do not intend to comment
upon it in any manner.
Mewar Polytex Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 2010
21. Now coming to the question No.(2) as to whether the
Appellate Authority is bound by the circular having no jurisdiction
to set it aside, we would like to refer to certain decisions, relied
upon by Shri Arshad Hidayatullah. The Division Bench of Punjab &
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 22:57:57 :::
19
wp1176.17.odt
Haryana High Court in the case of Vardhman Polytex Limited v.
Union of India, reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 17 (P & H), has held
in paragraph 8 as under :
Madras Bar Association & Ors. vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors. on 20 March, 1995
"9. In course of hearing it was also contended that since
the writ petition has been filed at the stage of show cause,
such writ petition is pre-mature. Since the notice itself was
issued on the basis of the circular, it is obvious that such
circular is likely to be followed by the concerned Authorities,
and therefore, filing of the writ petition cannot be said to be
pre-mature and such circular, which is contrary to the
provisions of the Finance Act, cannot be sustained. For the
aforesaid purpose, the decision of this Court in
(1995) 216 ITR 240 (Mad.) (Madras Bar Association v.
CBDT) is applicable."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950
Section 66 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Central Boards Of Revenue Act, 1963
Yfc Projects P.Ltd. vs Uoi on 9 January, 2014
6. According to Shri Arshad Hidayatullah, the learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Shri A.J. Bhoot, Advocate for the petitioners,
the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court basically to
challenge the circular No.1022/10/2016-CX, dated 6-4-2016,
which travels beyond the scope of the provision of Section 37-B of
the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the said Act") to enlarge the
definition of 'other fertilizers' by construing the 'essential
constituent' means the 'essential character'. According to him, the
circular offends the language employed in Note 6 under Chapter
Heading 3105. The Department as well as the Appellate Authority
::: Uploaded on - 05/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 22:57:57 :::
6
wp1176.17.odt
are bound by the circular, leaving no scope to accept any other
interpretation in conformity with the plain language of the
provision. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Delhi High Court
in the case of Vistar Construction (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, reported
in 2013(31) S.T.R. 129 (Del), the decision of Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the case of Vardhman Polytex Limited v. Union of
India, reported in 2001(135) E.L.T. 17 (P & H), and the decision of
the Apex Court delivered on 6-12-2017 in Civil Appeal No.137 of
2009 in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes &
Ors. v. LIS (Registered).