Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2013 2013 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 2819 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 1140 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Denial of Cenvat credit on Molasses - Revenue was of the view that the applicant could not have taken CENVAT credit on such molasses contained in De natured spirit – Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Payment of 10% of the price of exempted product is only one such option - This cannot be thrust on any assessee especially when the assessee meticulously acts to ensure that credit is taken only in respect of inputs that are going into the manufacture of dutiable product - the appellant had maintained separate account regarding receipt, inventory and utilization and took credit on inputs used in dutiable products - the quantity of molasses that will go into dutiable product will be known only at the point of time of de-naturing – Relying upon Sakthi Sugars Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2007 (6) TMI 471 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - the applicant is prima facie correct in taking the credit immediately on knowing the quantity of molasses used in the manufacture of the dutiable product - waiver of pre-deposit of dues gratned till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1139 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Goods cleared without payment of duty - Discharge 5% of the value of goods - Held that:- appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal - Following decision of Indian Potash Limited [2012 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1138 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of CENVAT credit - Availment of CENVAT credit on HR plates - Construction of storage tanks - Held that:- CENVAT credit was admissible to inputs used in the manufacture of storage tanks which were expressly covered by the definition of "capital goods" given under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Following decision of Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore [2009 (11) TMI 232 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-II vs. SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1137 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - Imposition of equivalent penalty under Section 11AC - Availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods installed at the adjacent plot to the factory of the applicant which finally merged with the factory of the applicant - Held that:- capital goods and the storage tank has merged with the factory of the applicant and if the same are merged with the factory of the applicant, prima facie, I am of the view that applicants are entitled for CENVAT credit. Accordingly, applicant has made out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit therefore, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Authorization of Commissioner required - Held that:- Authorisation of the Committee of Commissioners is not dated. But one Commissioner has authorised the appeal to be filed under his signature dated 8-11-2010. The other Commissioner has not yet authorised because the signature is undated. A public document sees the light of the day only when that is authenticated under signature and date. Part of the authorisation is yet to be dated. Such authorisation not being acceptable to law - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1135 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether the respondent is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the basis of certified copy of Bill of Entry - Held that:- all the particulars in the Bill of Entry relate to the respondents. It is also not disputed that either the duty was paid by them on imported goods or the goods were received in the factory and utilised in the manufacture of final product. In the absence of all these allegations, I find no reason to deny the credit of duty availed by the respondents on the certified copy of Bill of Entry - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1134 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Double benefit - CENVAT Credit on capital goods - Availment of depreciation on the same capital goods - Held that:- prima facie it appears that the demand is not sustainable. No double benefit has been taken in respect of capital goods, which is prohibited under the law. In this case, the credit has been taken in respect of the inputs and there is no charge in the show cause notice that the credit on the inputs is not admissible. Hence, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived during the pendency of the appeal - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1133 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Demand of duty - Goods sent to the SEZ without payment of duty for export purposes - Jurisdiction of Tribunal - Held that:- As per proviso (C) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with such cases. In view of the above, the appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with a liberty to the applicant to take appropriate remedy before an appropriate forum within one month - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1132 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Rectification of mistake - Application for rectification filed beyond period of 6 months - Held that:- Tribunal has no power to condone the delay in filing the application for rectification of mistake. In view of this, as the application was filed after 6 months from the date of Order, we find no merit in the application - Rectification denied.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1088 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Valuation of Goods under Section 4A OR Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Held that:- Appellant directed to deposit 10% of the duty liability as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1087 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat credit availed – Duty discharged defaulting the Provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following SOLAR CHEMFERTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I [2011 (6) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - The appellant has discharged the default amount of central excise duty and interest in 2008 to 2009 – the appellant has made out a prima facie case in their favour – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1086 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim rejected on bar of limitation – Held that:- The claim of refund was made by the appellant within a period of around two months from the date of passing of the order-in-appeal - Following Surbhi Enterprise Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2006 (12) TMI 25 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD ] and Nepa Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore [2002 (10) TMI 150 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] – filing an appeal against the order of confirmation of the demand amounts to protest and the consequential relief is liable to be granted to the assessee on the success of their appeal without raising the power of limitation.

  Relatability of debit to the demand – Held that:- Merely because the appellant has not mentioned against the said debit that the same is relatable to the demand in question will not ipso facto go to show that the same is not in respect of the confirmed demand - the debit was relatable to the demand and the appellant are entitled to the refund – order set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1085 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Condonation of Delay – Delay of one year far beyond the condonable period – Held that:- The order-in-original was received by the party on 23.07.2010 and an appeal against the same was filed only on 08.08.2011 with a delay far beyond the condonable period of delay prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act 1994 – Following Singh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner [2007 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Section 5 of Limitation Act 1963 was not applicable and that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not empowered, under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, to condone any delay beyond the condonable period of delay (30 days) prescribed – the order of Commissioner (Appeals) sustained and appeal dismissed with the stay application.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1084 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Determination of Assessable value - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following Ispat Industries Ltd. VS. Commr. of Central Excise, Raigad [2007 (2) TMI 5 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - the assessable value of stock transferred goods should be determined as per the price at which such goods were sold to independent buyers - it cannot be denied that the price at which the goods were sold to independent buyers ought to be adopted for the purposes of determination of assessable value of goods, captively consumed as well as cleared to sister unit on stock transfer basis – applicant directed to submit Rupees two crores as Pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1083 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Determination of assessable value of cakes - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following M/s Eastern Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC Ex., Kol.VII [2013 (5) TMI 322 - CESTAT KOLKATA] – The Tribunal had already allowed the stay to the assessee for earlier period - the applicants are able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of duty and penalty – Pre-deposit waived till the disposal of appeal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1082 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Denial of Cenvat credit - Goods Inputs and/or Capital goods under Rule 2 (k) and Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Applicant had availed the CENVAT Credit on ‘Rails’ initially claiming it as capital goods and later as inputs - The applicant had contended that initially they claimed the rails as capital goods and accordingly, capitalized the same in the Books of Accounts, but for the subsequent periods, the rails were claimed as inputs under Rule 2 (k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Following M/s. SAIL, DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR [2013 (11) TMI 1411 - CESTAT KOLKATA] - the applicant directed to deposit 25% of the cenvat credit as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1081 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Assessee not registered as input service distributor – Invoices raised and the services used at different units - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima-facie, the cenvat credit has not been availed correctly as per the procedure laid down under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - the applicant directed to deposit Rupees thirteen lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1080 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Inclusion of the value of pre-laminated boards in the assessable value - Goods manufactured on job work basis - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2005 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - the job-worker was not liable to pay duty on the input supplied by the principal manufacturer after availing CENVAT credit – the assessee has established prima facie case in their favour – waiver of Pre-deposits granted till the disposal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1079 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Differential amount of duty - Addition of value of materials supplied free of cost - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Waiver and stay were granted on the basis of revenue-neutrality - there is nothing on record to indicate that the Stay Order was not accepted by the department – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1038 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Inclusion of After sales services and Pre-delivery inspection in assessable value – Revenue was of the view that the assessee derived additional consideration and it should be included in assessable value as per Rule 6 of Valuation rules, 2000 – Held that:- There is a specific averment of the assessee that the value declared for payment of duty have already included the expenses towards PDI and ASS - The actual reimbursement should have been Rs.1.16 crores and the assessee had reimbursed or paid to the dealer only Rs.90.84 lakhs and duty was demanded on the differential amount - the amount of Rs.90.84 lakhs was included in assessable value - there is no basis that the balance amount was not included in the assessable value –the assessee had already included the charges towards PDI and ASS in the assessable value - the amount of money value of any additional consideration flowing directly or indirectly from the buyer to the assessee in Rule 6 of Valuation Rules, 2000, make it clear that the amount should be received by the assessee - there is no material available that the assessee had collected any additional consideration – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 141