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 141 to 160 of 2819 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 1037 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Property already attached for the requirement of Pre-deposit - Denial of benefit under Notification No. 6/2002 – Special exemption on textile and textile articles – Held that:- There is attachment of property of approximately of Rs. 3.10 Crores - the interest of Revenue is secured – order modified to the extent that the property which has been attached and handed over is considered as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1036 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Benefit of Notification No.4/2006 - Bagasse and Spent Wash processed to produce Bio-compost and Bio-super – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The contention that the site at which the products were manufactured was part of the distillery only for the reason that the sales from that site is shown cannot be accepted – Relying upon CCE Tirunelveli Vs Dharani Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008 (8) TMI 618 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - excisability of Bio-compost and demand under Rule 57CC of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules in respect of chemicals used in Bio-compost was considered - The situation under Rule 6 of the new Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 cannot be any different - Pre-deposit of dues waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1035 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Denial of CENVAT credit on inputs – Goods used in the manufacture of final product or not – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The items were used in the manufacture of final product of refractory castables and high temperature bricks either directly or indirectly - the final products were cleared on payment of duty - Relying upon CCE Vs. Rane NSK Steering Systems Ltd. [2007 (2) TMI 141 - HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA ] – waiver of pre-deposits allowed till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1034 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Inclusion of clearances for determination of aggregate value – Area based SSI exemption under Notification No.08/2003 – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following SARVOTHAM CARE LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [2009 (8) TMI 1004 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - what was done in calculating the aggregate value of the clearances of all the excisable goods for the preceding financial year in terms of para 2 (vii) of Notification was correct and therefore no prima facie case has been made out - the appellant directed to deposit Rupees Three lakhs thirty five thousand three hundred and thirty three as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1033 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Denial of CENVAT credit on materials – Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima facie, the materials used in the manufacture of immovable structures are not covered by the explanation - It is true that the period of dispute is almost entirely prior to 07.07.2009 but this fact does not ipso facto go to support the appellant in the present context inasmuch as the amendment made to the above explanation under Notification No. 16/2009 – Relying upon Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) ] - After examining the definition of input service given under Rule 2(l) of the CCR, the services used in the setting up of factory are squarely covered by the inclusion part of the definition - While denying CENVAT credit on some of the input services on the above technical ground, the learned Commissioner did not dispute the tax-paid nature of the services and the nexus of the services with the business of manufacture of cement - Prima facie the appellant has case in their favour against the CENVAT credit denied on the input services – appellant directed to pre-deposit Rupees Fifty Lakhs – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1032 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – Penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- The appellants have specifically stated that they have only purchased Aluminum scrap from M/s Archer Metal Limited – there was merit in the contentions that the demand of duty on M/s Archer Metal Ltd. is as regards clandestine removal of aluminum foils and aluminum coils - There is no demand of duty on M/s Archer Metal Ltd for aluminum scrap either removed clandestinely or otherwise - both the appellants have dealt with the goods which are liable for confiscation - the appellants have made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved.

  As regards the appellant Shri R.K. Virani, his statement has indicated that they have procured aluminum coils/foils from M/s Archer Metal Ltd. - The evidence on record needs to be gone into details as regards the role played by him in respect of such dutiable products. - We are of the view that Shri R.K. Virani needs to be put to some condition for hearing - appellant directed to submit Rupees Fifty Thousands as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1031 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Denial of service tax on Renting of immovable property and on personal accident policies - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Denial of CENVAT Credit on Service Tax paid by the appellant would be incorrect as the processing activities carried out by the appellant are relatable to the manufacturing of final product - as regards Personal Accident Insurance Policies, even if an employee is working in Kanpur and insurance policy is taken in Daman, Service Tax paid on such insurance policy is in relation to the business activities of the appellant - the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of the amounts involved – pre-deposits waived till the disposal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1030 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Clubbing of clearances of all the units - Dummy units created to avail benefit of SSI - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Panchnama specifically talks about the existence of all the units and having independent machinery - If that be so, the Revenue authorities should have issued notices to other two units also to show cause as to their units be not considered as dummy units – COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR Versus SETHIA FOODS [2002 (10) TMI 185 - CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI] - the entire case needs to be gone into detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeals - the amount of Rs.20 lakhs deposited by the main appellant is enough security as pre-deposit till the disposal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1029 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Availment of CENVAT Credit - Duty paid on the common inputs - Inputs dutiable as well as exempted products - Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Prior to 01.03.2008, the reversal of CENVAT Credit of duty attributable to the inputs consumed in the manufacturing of exempted products, was an accepted proposition by retrospective amendment - As regards post 01.03.2008, the appellant-assessee was required to follow the procedure as given in the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which mandates that assessee files the details of consumption of the common inputs in the manufacturing of the exempted products and reversing the amount of CENVAT Credit attributable to them mentions.

  All the legal arguments raised as to the practice followed by the assessee prior to 01.03.2008 will be applicable post 01.03.2008 also, can be considered only at the time of final disposal of appeal - as the appellants, have not followed the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, thus, needs to be put to some condition - the appellant directed to deposit Rupees Seven lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1028 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Opportunity to appear and argue – Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that:- The Tribunal had given sufficient opportunities to the petitioners to appear and argue their stay petitions on merits - Such opportunities were not availed - looking to the sizable amount of duty demand and its overall impact along with penalties and interest, on certain suitable condition of imposing cost, to enable the petitioners to appear before the Tribunal and argue their Stay Petitions on merits - The petitioners stay petitions before the Tribunal are revived - Assessee directed to deposit Rupees Fifteen Thousand as pre-deposit – upon submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Imposition of 100% Penalty – Assessee amortized the entire cost of moulds in the cost of parts manufactured - Held that:- The Revenue’s contention that said raising of cost of the moulds would be applicable retrospectively and it would be the higher cost of moulds which have to be amortized in the value of the parts does not stand disputed by the assessee and they have discharged their duty liability, on being pointed out by the Revenue – Thus, imposition of penalty upon the appellant is not called for as there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee to amortize the lower cost of the moulds in the value of the vehicle parts - confirmation of demand of duty has not been disputed by the appellants, it was upheld and penalties imposed upon both the appellants set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Disallowance of the value of rubber ring - Cost of rubber ring includes other costs to bring it to factory gate and other incidental costs – Held that:- The deduction in respect of bought out item should be limited to the cost of rubber ring only and not beyond that - Claim of deduction by the appellant being excess over the cost of the rubber ring, the excess amount had depressed the assessable value which should be dutiable - Mere information to the department does not erode the culpability nor with the passage of time legalises an illegality – the contravention does not vanish by plea of time bar –thus, penalty was rightly imposed – Decided against assessee.

  Levy of duty on the excess transport charges recovered from the buyers – Held that:- Levy of duty not being forming part of assessable value, such profit is out of scope of levy of duty under Central Excise Act, 1944 – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 984 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Freight charges incurred to be added in the assessable value or not - Supply of the goods to their customers – Held that:- Following BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-II [2001 (4) TMI 330 - CEGAT, KOLKATA ] - it was immaterial that the customers bore the freight cost in some cases and assessee in other cases on recovery basis from the customers - That in either case if the declared price is inclusive or freight, equalized amount was deductible - There is no dispute that the charges relate to transportation cost alone from the factory to the consignee end and that the same were recovered - given the same merely its separate non-mention is no legal ground to include the same in assessable value and demand duty - the duty is not recoverable.

  There is no dispute that the appellant has actually incurred the freight expenses - Merely because the same were shown as ‘handling charges’ in the ledger, is no ground to deny the deduction of the same - the non-mentioning of separate freight expenses in the invoices would not result in denial of deduction of the same in as much as the clearances was destination based and there is no dispute about the fact that appellant have actually incurred such freight charges – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 983 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Interest on refund amount to be paid or actually paid u/s 11BB of central excise act, 1944 – Held that:- There has been delay of 1076 days in sanction and payment of refund claim as held by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order dated 26.8.2011 - The differential refund adjusted by original adjudicating authority was also an amount due to the appellant - The appellant will be entitled to interest on the entire refund amount for the period of 1076 days - appellant is also entitled to differential interest on the amount adjusted against confirmed dues by the original adjudicating authority - adjudicating authority is directed to quantify the differential interest and make payment of the same to the appellant – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 982 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Nexus between consideration recovered from gift and sale of the goods cleared – Held that:- It is inconceivable how a gift is a realizable sale transferring of the property in the goods - Adjudication has not brought out the nexus how recovery from the gift items was an additional consideration flown to the appellant and such value of consideration was deflated amount of sale price of excisable goods cleared - In the absence of nexus, it is not possible to uphold the adjudication order – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 981 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Scrap cleared form job worker’s premises – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- They issued invoice for value of goods and excise duty payable - The job worker has captively used it in further manufacture of dutiable products - The captive use also will amount to ‘clearance’ - There was no contravention of Rules when BHEL pays excise duty after a period of time - the goods were duty paid and received in the factory of the applicant - after considering the proviso to Rule 9 (2) of Cenvat Credit rules, 2004 it is proper to waive the requirement of pre-deposit of dues – Pre-deposits stayed till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 980 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Entitlement for cenvat credit - Process of cutting and slitting amounts to manufacture or not - Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Applicant cleared the goods on payment of duty - in assessee’s own case it was held that process undertaken by the applicant would amount to ‘manufacture’ - The applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and equal amount of credit and penalty along with interest – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 979 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Classification of Goods – HDPE Warp Kntted Fabrics manufactured - Chapter 54 OR 39 of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Board Circular clarify that the goods should be classified under Chapter 39 – assessee contended that the demand was not quantified correctly and they are eligible for CENVAT credit benefit - prima facie, there is dispute in classification of the goods – appellant directed to deposit Rupees twenty five lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Free distribution of the physician samples - Payment of duty on transaction value - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Following Allianz Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Commissioner Central Excise, Puducherry [2012 (7) TMI 32 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2008 (9) TMI 98 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD] - wherever applicant manufactured physician samples under a contract with the brand owner on transaction value, no further demand of duty is required to be confirmed – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 977 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Duty demand on plastic scrap - Polycarbonate bottles used for packing and selling of purified drinking water – Held that:- The appellant is not a manufacturer of plastic scrap - Only the old and used items are sold as scrap by the appellant – thus, there is no manufacture involved - duty demand on the plastic scrap is not sustainable – Following VVF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Daman [2009 (8) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - waste arising during the process of manufacture cannot be considered as marketable product by itself and disposal of waste material by sale and recovery of some value by itself did not render it as marketable or excisable - The waste has arisen either on account of damage of the bottles during the process of use or the plastic bottle has been scrapped after use of the bottles in50 cycles - If by continuously using an item, the said item becomes a scrap, it cannot be said that the so-called waste is a manufactured product.

  Demand on control samples of purified water – Held that:- It cannot be said that the appellant had cleared the control samples for purposes other than those stipulated – Following Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam [2007 (7) TMI 145 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - samples mandatorily drawn for testing and getting used up/destroyed during testing cannot be considered as excisable goods liable to duty - Revenue has not adduced any evidence that the control samples have been removed from the factory and has not been consumed or lost or destroyed during the course of testing - In the absence of any corroborative evidence of removal of these samples from the factory, the demand of duty on such control samples cannot be sustained – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 141