Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 67873 Records

  • 2018 (1) TMI 1014 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. S.R. Mineral Water (P) Ltd., M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

    Valuation - MRP Based Valuation - main allegation raised is that for the goods having same quality and quantity, the appellants have affixed different MRP for the distribution / supply in the same area - The defence taken by the appellant is that different MRP was affixed on the goods supplied in the same area because the supply was made to distinct class of buyers. - Held that - The basic feature of the MRP valuation is to have uniform pricing f....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1013 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    M/s Hng Float Glass Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, - Vadodara

    Liability of interest - CENVAT credit availed wrongly, but not utilized - case of appellant is that since the said credit has not been utilized, therefore, interest for the intervening period is not applicable - whether interest is payable on the erroneous Cenvat credit availed during the period September 2008 to January 2009? - Held that - There is no dispute of the fact that the appellant had incorrectly availed Cenvat credit of the amount of a....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1012 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Shri SN Modani, Shri Kedar Mal Rathi, Sangam India Ltd Versus CC & ST, Udaipur

    CENVAT credit - Rule 6(4) of the CCR, 2004 - whether the goods which are so cleared for export are to be considered as exempted goods or dutiable goods? - Held that - it is settled principle of law that only the goods are exported from the country and not the taxes. The Central Excise law provides for clearance of goods for export either under bond in which case the terminal excise duty is not paid at the time of clearance from the factory but in....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1011 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Terminal Manager, M/s. IOC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

    Refund of service tax paid - amalgamation of companies - rejection of refund on the ground of time bar - scope of SCN - Held that - In the SCN there is no whisper as to what is the relevant date considered or the date for determining the claim to be time-bar. The refund sanctioning authority as well as the lower appellate authority have travelled beyond the SCN to conclude that the relevant date is the date of payment of service tax and that sub-....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1010 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Versus M/s. Schneider Electric India Pvt. Ltd.

    CENVAT credit - distribution of credit through ISD to different unit - case of Department is that credit has been wrongly availed by the respondents on input as services were availed by other units of the respondent - Held that - When the respondent has taken ISD registration, we find no reason to deny the credit availed on such ISD invoices, though the services have been consumed in other unit of the respondent - reliance placed in the case of C....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1009 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. F.L. Smidth Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

    CENVAT credit - input services - stand of Department is that input services of BAS upon which the appellant paid the sales commission and availed credit of service tax paid need not have any direct nexus with the manufacture of final products - Held that - The allegation in the SCN is that the appellant is not eligible for credit for the reason that the major part of the goods supplied for which the commission was received is for bought out items....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1008 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Versus Shri P. Arumaiarasu

    SSI Exemption - use of Brand Name - allegation against the respondent is that they have manufactured pharmaceutical products using the brand name of other persons and therefore the benefit of SSI exemption N/N. 8/2002 is not available to them - request for cross-examination rejected - Held that - The request for cross-examination was disallowed by the adjudicating authority stating that the statements given by these persons have already been inco....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1007 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Ranjan Srivastava, Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Agra

    Penalty on Director u/r 26 of CER - clandestine activity by manufacturing unit - Held that - there is no contest to the issue that the Director of the Company was the involved party in the clandestine activity of the manufacturing unit. As such, penalty upon his is liable to be upheld - appreciating that the penalty on the main assessee stands reduced 25 , the penalty in the present appeal is reduced to ₹ 25,000/-, in case, the appellant de....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1006 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Rana Steels (A Unit of K Steels) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I

    Clandestine removal - shortage of stock - case of appellant is that such shortages in this stock were not real and were pseudo inasmuch as it is not possible for the officers to weigh about 3500 M.T. of stock in 10 hours, spent by them in the factory - Held that - apart from the fact that the Revenue has not enable to substantiate the actual weighment of the material, the entire case of the Revenue is based on only to the shortages detected at th....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 1005 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow

    Refund of Education Cess and Secondary Higher Education Cess - time limitation - whether the refund doing are required to be rejected, in terms of provisions of Section 11B of the CEA or the general limitation period of 3 years as available under the limitation Act has to be followed? - Held that - the refund claim by an assessee originate on account of the fact that such duty was not required to be paid. If refunds are allowed without adhering t....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 999 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Principal Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Triveni Engineering And Industries Ltd. Saharanpur

    CENVAT credit - Whether the CESTAT is correct in allowing the CENVAT Credit on plant and machinery as capital goods installed in the Co-generation power plant which is outside the approved factory premises and without bringing the same in their factory and without using the same in the manufacturing of finished goods? - Held that - Section 6 read with Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, requires a person such as the assessee-engaged in prod....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 997 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Executive Engineer, P.W.D. /W. R.O. Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise And 2. The Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Trichy

    Refund of pre-deposit - period of limitation - Section 11 B(5) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - A refund will occur only if money is paid. Even, as per the orders passed by the CEGAT, the petitioner had pre-deposited such amount as a condition precedent for filing an appeal. Thus, the said deposit should abide by the final orders to be passed by the CEGAT in the petitioner s appeal petition. Such deposit amount cannot be appropriated....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 995 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

    Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kanpur Versus M/s Mayank And Co.

    Withdrawal of Single appeal in respect of 8 appeals - Held that - A single appeal in respect of all the 8 appeals decided by the CESTAT is not permissible and rather creates confusion and complication - we permit the counsel for the appellant to withdraw this appeal and to file separate appeals in respect of each of the assessees - appeal is dismissed as withdrawn........ + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 988 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Nutan Ispat & Power Pvt. Ltd., Shri S.V.S. Sharma Shri Pradeep Kumar Aggarwal, Director M/s. Indo Lahari Bio Power Ltd. Versus CCE, Raipur

    Clandestine removal - case of the Department is based on four private note books seized from the residence of Shri Sarma on 9.12.2011 - serious discrepancies between statutory records and seized note books - Held that - the impugned order did not deal with all the factual and legal submission made by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority. Some of the crucial point were not examined that formed the basis formed for arriving at the conclu....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 985 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Mukesh Katheil, Anil Nikhra, Arvind Pateria, Ashok Gupta Alias Ashok Gurha, Purushottam Gupta Alias P.D. Rawat, Dinesh Seth Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal

    Clandestine removal - Gutka - illegal factory premises - denial of opportunity of cross-examination - closure of factory - declaration of machinery - Held that - one machine has been declared by Shri Mukesh Katheil in his registered premises, but the same has been intimated as closed in the month of July, 2008. During the course of search, three undeclared premises have been detected where 12 packing machines were found working and engaged in pac....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 984 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s MOIL Limited Versus CCE & ST, Jabalpur

    Manufacture - ore concentrate - various processes such as crushing, screening, sorting by hydraulic machines and washing with high pressure water was performed by machines - The Department was of the view that in the light of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 26, the processes carried out by the appellant resulted in the manufacture of ore concentrate and the same amounts to manufacture - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of Rungta Mines vs. CCE 2016 ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 970 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow Versus M/s Rekon Extrusion Pvt. Ltd.

    SSI units - clubbing of clearances - dummy units or not? - Held that - both the units are registered separately under various authorities and being limited companies have to be held as separate units and entitled to the benefit of small scale Notification separately - benefit of SSI extended - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 968 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Geeta Glass Works, M/s Firozabad Block Glass Enterprises Versus CCE, Kanpur (Vice-Versa)

    CENVAT credit - manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - separate records not maintained - Rule 6(3) of the CCR - Held that - The only requirement under the law is maintenance of separate records in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as also exempted goods. As per the appellant such records stand maintained by them and produced before the adjudicating authority. This fact requires verification for which purpose, the im....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 967 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Progressive Tools And Components Private Limited Versus CCE, Ghaziabad

    CENVAT credit on inputs used to manufacture goods, which are cleared on payment of duty - Manufacture taking place or not? - Held that - without adverting to the fact as to whether the activities undertaken by the appellant amount to manufacture or not, it stands well settled that even if the activity undertaken by an assessee does not amount to manufacture of the final products which stands cleared on payment of duty, the benefit of cenvat credi....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 966 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Surindra Thermopack Ltd., Shri Rakesh Kr. Jain Versus Commr. of Central Excise And S. Tax, Meerut-II

    Clandestine removal - shortage of stock - expendable polystyrene - Held that - the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled by the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commr. Vs. Minakshi Castings 2011 (8) TMI 896 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT laying down that mere shortages, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, cannot lead to findings of the clandestine removal - demand in the present case is only based upon the shortages an....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version