Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise

Court

Law

Citation -


Showing 1 to 20 of 58764 Records

Central Excise - Case Laws

 

2016 (2) TMI 254 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Suyash Chemicals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

Cenvat credit on the basis of the endorsed bill of entry - Is endorsed bill of entry a valid document for claiming cenvat credit? - Held that - In this case it is not disputed the receipt of the material and duty paid on that. Further as find that in the case of Akzo Nobel Coatings (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore reported in 2013 2012 (11) TMI 1021 - CESTAT BANGALORE the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit on the basis of endorsed bill of ent.....


2016 (2) TMI 253 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Godfrey Philips India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV

Duty demand on waste/scrap of packing materials cleared from the factory - Held that - The dispute in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of International Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad 2003 (10) TMI 171 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein held that there is force in the submissions of the learned Advocate that no process of manufacture has been taken by them so as to attract the Central Excise duty on .....


2016 (2) TMI 252 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Bharat Steel Rolling Mills (Unit-I) , Muzaffarnagar Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I

Duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme confirmed - refusal of payment of duty under normal scheme - Held that - We hold that under the facts and circumstances, the appellant had not made/expressed option for paying tax for the financial year 1998-99 under the compounded levy scheme. As such, no tax can be demanded under the provisions of Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP(3). We accordingly set aside the impugned order on the issue of abatement also. .....


2016 (2) TMI 251 - CESTAT MUMBAI

MITC Rolling Mills P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

Demand of duty on the goods clandestinely removed from the factory premises - Held that - There is enough evidence to indicate that the goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty by appellant No.1 to various purchasers. On that account there is no case; imposition of penalty on Shri Champsi M. Shah, find that appellant has no case and it has to be held that the first appellate authority as well as the adjudicating authority are corr.....


2016 (2) TMI 250 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Namdhari Industrial Traders Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Ludhiana

Duty liability - Manufacturing activity - excisability of the product sold by the appellants by grouping like goods together and whether the process amounts to manufacture and specified duty liability by products of each group - Held that - Regarding the demand of duty from the appellant for galvanizing work done by the job worker, the original authority stated that certain processes like cutting welding were done before they are sent to galvaniz.....


2016 (2) TMI 249 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Mahadev Pharmaceuticals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chandigarh

Area based exemption - notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10.6.2003 - denial of benefit as the appellant was not having electricity connection or DG set installed at the time of investigation - demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty - Held that - From the perusal of various documents, we find that appellants have installed machines which are evidence of manufacture of final products and they have license to manufacture from Drugs Co.....


2016 (2) TMI 248 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd., Shri ML Agarwal, Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

SSI Exemption - Interpretation of notification 8/2002-CE dated 01/3/2002 existed prior to the Notification which came into effect on 01/3/2003 - suppression of facts - bifurcation of exempted goods to two categories - Penalty imposed - Held that - On perusal of both notifications we find that the clause in the Notification pertaining to calculation of aggregate value in regard to exempted goods is clearly worded and does not give reason for any d.....


2016 (2) TMI 218 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Galaxy Plywood Inds. P Ltd. Versus CCE, Panchkula

Classification of plasticized plywood - classifiable under 4410.90 OR under heading 4408.90 - Held that - The chapter heading 44.08 specifically speaks about plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. Whereas, the chapter heading 44.10 speaks about articles of wood not elsewhere specified. Undeniably, the impugned product does not fall into article of wood . So the product which is plasticized plywood is classifiable under chapter 44.08.....


2016 (2) TMI 217 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. La Opala RG Ltd. Versus Commr. of Central Excise-Ranchi And Vice-Versa

Cenvat Credit - manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods - Rule 6 - Quantity of inputs and proportionate credit availed, on the manufacture of dutiable final products - Held that - The entire demand has been worked out only on the basis of non-compliance of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Needless to mention that by virtue of Finance Act, 2010 an assessee has been allowed to reverse proportionate credit availed on the inputs that were u.....


2016 (2) TMI 216 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Versus M/s LG Balakrishnan & Bros Ltd.

Energy generate by windmills used for the purpose other than manufacture or providing of service - Held that - There is no dispute by Revenue that the generation of power using windmill was to share the same with Electricity Board to avail the same quantum of power at the place of manufacture on barter system. There is also no dispute by Revenue that for generating power, installation of windmill is required and also maintenance thereof is inevit.....


2016 (2) TMI 214 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CCE-Bhopal Versus M/s. Premier Explosives Ltd., M/s. Keltech Engg. Ltd., M/s. IBP Co. Ltd., M/s. Solar Capitals Ltd., M/s. Emul Tak Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Bulk Explosives Pvt. Ltd.

Eligibility to get refund of excess duty - unjust enrichment - duty paid in cases where such excess duty collected from the buyers were restored to the buyers by way of credit notes - Held that - In case of IBP Limited (2013 (10) TMI 263 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) it was held that when initially goods have been supplied at a provisional price which subsequently had been reduced and when the higher price initially charged along with higher duty had been.....


2016 (2) TMI 213 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

M/s The Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut-II

Remission of duty - molasses lost during storage under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules - information delayed for occurrence of loss - Held that - Remission of duty in terms of Rule 21 is permissible subject to the satisfaction that the goods are lost by natural causes. Even if the applications were not submitted within the prescribed time, although Revenue has not been able to show us the Board Circulars, no evidence is on record to show that.....


2016 (2) TMI 212 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Kay Gee Spinners Pvt. Ltd. And Shri Vivek Kumar, Director Versus CCE, Rohtak

Clandestine removal of cotton yarn in cones/cheese by mis-declaring the same as in PR Hanks - Wrong availment of benefit of exemption notification no.8/96-CE dated 27.03.1996 - the appellant mis-declared yarn produced by them as in the form of PR Hanks though they had manufactured and cleared the yarn in cone/cheese - also failure to maintain the record of manufacture of excisable goods - Held that - The case for demand of duty based on the alleg.....


2016 (2) TMI 211 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Jagat Alloys P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

Rectification of mistake - difference in opinion between Member (Judicial) and Member (Technical) the Hon ble President nominated the Third Member (Technical) to resolve the difference of opinion - Whether the evidence produced by the Revenue establishes wrongful availment of Cenvat credit and consequently demand of duty and imposition of penalties is sustainable as held by Member (Technical)? - Held that - In the present case, the question refer.....


2016 (2) TMI 210 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Balakrishna Industries Ltd. Versus Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur-I

Denial of CENVAT credit on amount paid through PLA - Held that - In this case the appellant initially paid SED by utilizing their Cenvat credit account. The payment of excess rebate claim was paid through PLA is only a cross-entry for reversal of rebate claim received in cash by the appellant. Therefore, the Cenvat credit utilized for payment of SED was made good by the appellant taking on account of payment of SED through Cenvat credit account o.....


2016 (2) TMI 209 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Wintek Prelam Versus C.C.E. & S.T. Jalandhar

Manufacture of Laminated Bagasse Board - Waiver of pre deposit of the duty demand along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty - Held that - We find that as per the notification no. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Sl. No. 330) the bagasse board is exempted from payment of duty. We also take a note of clarification issued by the CBEC dated 19.06.2007 wherein it has been clarified that pre laminated bagasse particle board are exempted from duty a.....


2016 (2) TMI 208 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Commissioner of C. EX. & S.T., Raipur Versus SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.

Entitlement to take Cenvat credit on rails - rails are fixed to the earth and EOT cranes are being run over them - Held that - Credit on capital goods is available only on items, which are excisable goods covered under the definition of capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and used in the factory of the manufacturer. As regards inputs , they have to be covered under the definition of input under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and used in .....


2016 (2) TMI 202 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli

Duty liability - whether the finished goods i.e. bars and rods and ingots and billets lying in stock as on 1.8.99 is chargeable to duty at specific rate of duty as per the notification No.50/97 or standard rate of 16 advalorem? - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has dealt the issue in detail and clearly brought out that appellants have failed to produce any evidence that stock of goods lying in appellant s factory were manufactured.....


2016 (2) TMI 201 - CESTAT BANGALORE

M/s. Travancore Cochin Chemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax (Appeals)

Duty liability of mercury - Excisability - Held that - Mercury obtained through manufacture of caustic soda and cleared as such is liable to duty of Central Excise. In this regard, CESTAT Delhi s decision in the case of Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (2005 (4) TMI 113 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) also aptly reinforces Revenue s stand that the mercury cleared as such is liable to duty of Central Excise. - Decided against assessee


2016 (2) TMI 200 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV Versus M/s Birla NGK Insulators Pvt. Ltd

Clandestine removal - whether shortages suggested by the statutory auditors of the Respondent, based on test check, can be made the basis for clandestine removal? - Held that - There is no evidence with the Revenue that the re-conciliation done by the Respondent is incorrect. There is force in the argument of the Respondent that finished goods can not be both short & excess and that such a situation can be only due to wrong recording of code .....


1........
 
 
 

what is new what is new

Latest

Featured

Experts

Subscription

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

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

Go to Mobile Website