9911796707
| TMI General Search |
|
Advanced Search Options
Showing 1 to 20 of 505 Records Search Text: 63 rlt 1 |
| Search Results |
| Case-Laws (504) Circulars (1) |
|
2015 (8) TMI 812 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad granted an extension of stay in accordance with the Larger Bench decision in IPCL Vs. CCE Vadodara. The stay was extended for an additional six months or until the appeals are disposed of, whichever occurs first.
2015 (8) TMI 811 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed applications for extension of stay based on the Larger Bench decision in the case of IPCL vs. C.C.E., Vadodara, upheld by the Supreme Court and High Court of Allahabad. The stay was extended for six months from the judgment date or until appeal disposal. The decision, referencing legal precedents, was issued by the tribunal, granting temporary relief to the parties involved, in line with established legal principles.
2015 (8) TMI 962 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad granted extensions of stay in line with precedents, allowing for a duration of six months or until the appeal is disposed of, whichever comes first.
2009 (4) TMI 664 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The assessee's application for extension of stay is allowed for six months or till the appeal is disposed of. Revenue's early hearing application is granted due to a duty demand of approximately Rs. 3.80 crores, and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 1-9-2009.
2004 (8) TMI 446 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal granted the extension of stay of recovery in a case where attachment proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were found to violate principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the attachment order included items immune to attachment without allowing the party to show cause, contrary to principles of natural justice. The extension was granted to prevent injustice and ensure the ends of justice were served, following the precedent set in IPCL v. CCE decision.
2004 (8) TMI 424 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal addressed the appellant's request for an extension of stay and early listing of the appeal, citing coercion by the department to pay duty. Relying on the Tribunal's decision in IPCL v. CCE Vadodara, the Tribunal clarified that the stay of recovery would continue until the application for waiver of predeposit was disposed of, emphasizing the need for separate consideration of the stay issue. The Tribunal highlighted that the stay order did not automatically revive with the appeal, ensuring a stay of recovery until the application's resolution for justice.
2013 (12) TMI 1396 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the assessees, allowing the extension of stay orders under Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 129B of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal rejected the department's argument against granting extensions, emphasizing its authority to do so under customs and excise laws. Citing a precedent and an Apex Court judgment, the Tribunal upheld the assessees' requests for extensions, maintaining consistency with established legal principles. The Tribunal granted the extensions for an additional six months or until the appeals were disposed of, reinforcing its power to extend stay orders in such cases.
2010 (9) TMI 1015 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The tribunal allowed the extension of stay application for six months or until the appeal's disposal, citing a previous Larger Bench decision. Additionally, the tribunal granted relief to the appellant by setting aside the detention letter and directing the release of finished goods worth approximately &8377;31.70 lakhs. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal procedures and respect for parties' rights, showcasing the significance of following due process and relevant legal precedents in resolving legal disputes.
2005 (2) TMI 675 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal granted an extension of the stay of recovery of duty in a case where appellants sought relief following a negative ruling by the Apex Court. The appellants argued their assessments were provisional, highlighting a strong prima facie case against the duty demand. The Tribunal considered the absence of a stay order under Section 35C (2A) of the Central Excise Act and the procedural complexities, ultimately extending the stay until the final appeal disposal. The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between provisional and non-provisional assessments and ensuring justice and fairness in the adjudication process.
2004 (8) TMI 488 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Tribunal granted the extension of stay of recovery requested by the appellants due to the Deputy Commissioner's premature appropriation of the sanctioned rebate amount towards the duty confirmed against the assessee, which was still appealable. The Tribunal found the Deputy Commissioner's actions unjust and prejudicial to the Revenue's interest, emphasizing the need to uphold principles of justice. Referring to a previous decision, the Tribunal exercised its inherent jurisdiction to extend the stay of recovery during the appeal process, ensuring fairness and protection of all parties' interests.
2004 (8) TMI 456 - CESTAT, CHENNAI The Single Member granted a stay of recovery of a penalty amount imposed under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, until the Division Bench could review the petition for extension of stay. The Single Member acknowledged the jurisdictional limitations but considered the appellants' request for interim relief to prevent undue hardships, citing Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules. The decision aimed to uphold justice and fairness in the proceedings, recognizing the need for temporary relief pending further review by the Division Bench.
2014 (11) TMI 452 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT The High Court clarified that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to extend stay beyond 365 days in excise appeal proceedings, subject to specific conditions. It emphasized the need for independent consideration of each application for extension of stay, highlighting the importance of assessing delays and party conduct. The Court stressed the requirement for speaking orders to ensure transparency in the process. The appeal was disposed of, granting the appellant the opportunity to apply before the Tribunal based on the Court's decision, with directions for detailed consideration in extending stays in excise matters.
2004 (12) TMI 160 - CESTAT, MUMBAI The Tribunal found in favor of the applicant, highlighting the abuse of process by the department in appropriating amounts against sanctioned rebate claims during the pendency of stay applications. The Tribunal emphasized the need to prevent such abuses, directing the Commissioner to return the appropriated amounts within seven days. It dismissed the application for early appeal hearing but endorsed evaluation of the Commissioner's conduct. The Tribunal underscored its power to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, criticizing the department's actions and emphasizing proper supervision and adherence to legal procedures.
2013 (7) TMI 434 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD The court dismissed the Revenue's application to vacate the stay granted to the assessee, citing insufficient legal basis for the requested details and lack of change in circumstances. The court granted the assessee's application for an extension of stay, noting no significant changes and relying on a previous judgment. The court emphasized that information requests must be legally supported and allowed the extension for a further six months or until the appeal's disposal.
2003 (8) TMI 270 - CESTAT, BANGALORE The Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed on M/s. BSAL and its executives, ruling that there was no evidence of knowledge or reason to believe they were involved in irregular activities. The Tribunal also found that the extended recovery period could not be invoked due to the Department's awareness of the situation. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the amount of irregularly availed Modvat credit had already been reversed by M/s. BSAL, thus no further recovery was required. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed in favor of M/s. BSAL.
2009 (11) TMI 716 - CESTAT BANGALORE The tribunal held that the items in question were an extension of previously exempted products, and the revenue could not reopen the issue. The tribunal set aside the order, ruling the duty demand against the appellant was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed without findings on other submissions. The judgment was pronounced on 12-11-2009.
2015 (3) TMI 659 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT The court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that Additional Excise Duty (Textile and Textile Articles) credit could only be utilized for AED(T&TA) payments and within a specified time frame. It agreed with the Tribunal's decision against remanding proceedings for duty recasting but deleted penalties imposed on the appellant, finding no intentional wrongdoing. The court dismissed the appeals, ruling in favor of the Revenue on most issues except for penalties, which were decided in favor of the assessee.
2008 (6) TMI 118 - CESTAT MUMBAI The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Wockhardt Hospital and Bombay Hospital, confirming the binding nature of those decisions. It determined that obligations under Notification No. 64/88 are continuous even after rescission, supported by relevant case law. Duty demands were deemed sustainable even without specific mention in show cause notices, and retrospective cancellation of Customs Duty Exemption Certificates (CDECs) was permitted. Charging a registration fee was considered a breach of notification conditions, and treatment in free camps was excluded from the calculation of free treatment limits. Individual appeals were addressed based on specific circumstances, with some cases remanded for further review.
2000 (11) TMI 779 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI The Tribunal upheld the clubbing of clearances for excise duty exemption, emphasizing discrepancies in machinery and raw materials at the units. It dismissed arguments on independent operations, stressing the necessity of genuine manufacturing for exemption. Duty was not imposed on exported goods, with directions for duty reevaluation. The case was remanded for reassessment of duty demands and penalties, highlighting the importance of proper penalty imposition following duty recalculations. The judgment focused on ensuring accurate duty calculations, penalty reassessment, and genuine manufacturing operations for availing benefits.
1998 (4) TMI 497 - CEGAT, MADRAS The Tribunal remanded the classification of unprocessed fabrics to the original authority, held one-sided coated fabrics as not marketable and not dutiable, classified articles of one-sided coated fabrics under Heading 63.01, determined that articles of double-sided coated fabrics fall under Heading 63.01, and found the demands in issue numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5 to be barred by time. Penalties imposed on the appellant company and its employees were set aside.
|
