High Courts’ Territorial Jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 Over Orders Passed by Appellate Tribunals: A Need for Course Correction
by Hiresh Choudhary* and Surbhi Sharma**
Central Excise Act 1944
‘Cheeselings’ manufactured by Parle Products Pvt Ltd is a peculiar indigenous preparation; classifiable as ‘namkeen’: CESTAT
‘Namkeen’ has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff under Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Therefore, the Tribunal opined that the adjudicating authority had erred in concluding that the impugned goods were not ‘namkeen’.
Delhi High Court upholds validity of Rule 8 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010
“The fact that a particular packing machine is operated only for few days during the month does not result in the duty liability being proportionately reduced or enhanced.”
Section 11B Central Excise Act’s limitation period applicable to claims for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002: SC
Supreme Court observed that if it is accepted that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Act shall not be applicable with respect to claim for rebate of duty as there is no mention of Section 11B of the Act either in Rule 18 or in the notification dated 6.9.2004, then there will not be any period of limitation for making an application for rebate of duty.