Section 11AC of the Income Tax Act

M/S Rashtriya Chem. and Fer. Ltd vs. Comm. of Central Ex. and Serv. Tax(Ltu)

Bench: The Cestat Against The Order-In- Original Dated 27.01.2010 Passed By The Commissioner Of Central Excise & Service Tax As The Original Adjudicating Authority. On The Other Hand, Appeal No. E/801/10-Mum Was Filed Before The Cestat Against The Order-In-Original Dated 04.02.2010 Passed By The Aforesaid Commissioner. By The Common Order Dated 27.03.2012, Both The Appeals Were Disposed Of By The Cestat Affirming The Levy Of Duty Qua The Two Orders-In-Original. Cestat Also Upheld The Penalty Imposed By The Adjudicating Authority Under Section 11Ac Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 But Set Aside The Penalties Imposed Under Rule 173Q Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 & Under Rule 25 Of The Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Lipi Boilers Ltd. Through Its Chief Executive vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Nashik Commissionerate

The appeals are partly allowed;

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Shyam Sundar Co Jewellers Pvt Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

The appeal is dismissed and the

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Calicut vs. M/S. Cera Board and Doors, Kannur, Kerala

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune vs. Hindustan National Glass & Inds. Ltd

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order passed

M/S. Purolator India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

M/S. Purolator India Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

M/S. B.P.L. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Calicut

M/S. B.P.L. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Calicut

Commnr., Customs & Cent.Excise Aurangabad vs. M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

Commnr., Customs & Cent.Excise Aurangabad vs. M/S. Roofit Industries Ltd

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

Commissioner, Central Excise Customs & Service Tax vs. Kay Kay Press Metal Corporation

The appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit as discussed above

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

Raja Mechanical Co.(P) Ltd vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, Delhi-I

Appeal is dismissed on

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

Commnr. Central Excise, Delhi vs. M/S. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd

The appeal is allowed; the