Showing 1 to 20 of 58732 Records
Central Excise - Case Laws
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 .....
2016 (2) TMI 199 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Mahavir Steel Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III
CENVAT credit - whether supplies made to SEZ Developer for the period prior to 31.12.2008 will attract the provisions of Rule 6(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules or not? - whether the appellant is liable to pay 10 of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ Developer in case no separate accounts have been maintained in respect of dutiable goods and goods supplied without payment of duty? - Held that - The very same issue was considered in Sujana Metal .....
2016 (2) TMI 186 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur Versus I.G. Petrochemicals Ltd.
Eligibility of exemption - waste steam and low boiling component to concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/1997, 13/1998 and 23/2003 - the products should have been manufactured wholly out of raw material produced or manufactured in India. - appellants were using imported raw materials. - The appellants have contended that they are maintaining separate records for storage and use of imported and indigenous Orthoxylene. The lower autho.....
2016 (2) TMI 185 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX Versus M/s. SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED
Extended period of limitation and, penalty imposed on the assessee - Held that - Extended period cannot be invoked and demand has to be restricted to the period within one year from the date of show cause notice. The amount involved within the period of one year should be worked out by the adjudicating authority and communicated to the appellant. The same should be paid by the appellant alongwith interest. BR BR So far as imposition of penalty up.....
2016 (2) TMI 184 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M/s Saraya Distillery Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad
Denial of MODVAT credit - belated claim of credit - Held that - In the instant case, it is not disputed by the department that the appellant was a new assessee. The appellant further contends that he was not aware of the Modvat Rules and, therefore, could not take credit. This fact has not been disputed by the respondents and, therefore, in our opinion sufficient reasons had been given by the appellant for the purpose of condoning the delay in fi.....
2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus DASHION LTD
Distribution of Cenvat credit without obtaining registration and without pro rata distribution - revenue neutral exercise - input service distributor (ISD) - Held that - It is true that the Government had framed Rules of 2005 for registration of input service distributors, who would have to make application to the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise in terms of Rule 3 thereof. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 further required any provider of ta.....
2016 (2) TMI 182 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
In Re : Naaz Leather Finishers
Settlement of a case - Eligibility to avail the benefit of the SSI exemptions No. 8/2003-C.E - benefit of cum duty price - Held that - The applicant has admitted duty liability on a cum-duty basis. The Revenue has not given any reason as to why cum-duty benefit may be denied. There is also no charge that the applicant cleared goods clandestinely nor is there any charge against M/s. Bata India that they procured goods from the applicant without pa.....
2016 (2) TMI 150 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Newman Valves Industries, M/s Ambika Newman Valves Industries, M/s Apex Piping Systems Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar
Denial of SSI exemption - demanding duty and imposing penalty - APSL was clearing the goods bearing brand name Newman belonging to other person viz. Newman Valve Industries NVI who has applied for registration of the brand name Newman - Held that - On examining the documents we do not find any substance in the contention put forward by Revenue. As already stated, these documents show that NVPL had applied for registration of trademark. So the bra.....
2016 (2) TMI 149 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Deepak Nitrite Ltd Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad
Reversal of CENVAT credit - clearance of inputs as such or clearance of manufactured product - product received from the job worker - demand of the duty liability with interest was confirmed and penalties were imposed - whether the appellant is required to reverse the Cenvat Credit availed as sought by the revenue authorities or otherwise, on the clearances of the said product? - Held that - The said product is undergoing the process of removal o.....
2016 (2) TMI 148 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Shree Sai Calnetes India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Anil Jangid Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Surat
Denial of CENVAT credit on MS Plates/ Channels, HR Plates, Bars, Rounds, Joit etc. - demand of CENVAT credit alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of CENVAT credit - Held that - The capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Rules covers the components, spares and accessories of the machinery as specified in Clause (i) and (ii) of the said definition. The eligibility of the Cenvat Credit of capital goods is depending upon th.....
2016 (2) TMI 147 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur-I
Liability of the appellant for higher rate of duty based on the test reports of NTH - Held that - The purpose of the order was to equalize prices and secure supply of cement through out the country. The object is to see that the price is controlled or in other words to see that it does not go beyond the maximum price fixed. The quality of the cement for this rate is fixed as per the contract entered by appellant with DGS&D and the same is ascerta.....
2016 (2) TMI 146 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Ruchira Papers Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Chandigarh
Area based exemption - Denial of exemption under notification no.50/2003-CE dated 10.06.2003 - appellant has wrongly mentioned their installed capacity as 30000 Mts. in certain documents - duty demand along with interest and the penalty - Held that - In this case although the appellant sought proposed annual capacity in the year 1995-96 to 30,-000 MT p.a. but the installed capacity was only 26400 pm. BR BR The progress report filed by the appella.....
2016 (2) TMI 145 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Indian Sugar & General Engg. Corpn. Versus CCE, Panchkula
Excess amount towards freight charges recovered from the buyers than the amount actually incurred - demand central excise duty - assessable value subjected to levy - whether freight is not part of the assessable value when the sales are effected at the factory gate? - Held that - There is no allegation to the effect that the price mentioned in the purchase orders are not true transaction value and certain extra consideration is received towards t.....
2016 (2) TMI 144 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Temple Packaging Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs And Service Tax, Daman
Reversal of credit during the defaulted period from Cenvat Account - Failure to discharge the duty liability on enrichment basis at the time of removal of goods, without utilizing the CENVAT credit - Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 - duty demand alongwith interest and to impose penalty - Held that - The short payment of ₹ 44,462.00 for the month of June 2013 is a bonafide mistake on the part of the app.....
2016 (2) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. HMM Coaches Limited Versus CCE, Panchkula
Extended period of limitation - charge of suppression - Held that - Nothing was asked from the appellant. Only on 8.4.2008, first time the sale invoice of the chassis manufacturer was asked from the appellant as the same was not in possession of the appellant, the appellant showed their inability to provide the same and thereafter they summoned to the chassis manufacturer to provide such details which were provided. As the sale invoice of the cha.....
2016 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
Euro Scaff (India) Ltd. Versus Commissioner
Clubbing of clearances for the purpose of SSI Exemption - Company controlled by family members - Dummy units - Apex Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of tribunal in 2013 (11) TMI 1019 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - Tribunal had confirmed the demand on lifting the corporate veil - Appeal dismissed.
2016 (2) TMI 109 - CESTAT KOLKATA
M/s. Haldia Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia
Recovery of interest - Inadmissible cenvat credit on basic customs duty instead of CVD - entire amount of cenvat credit was later voluntarily reversed much before issuance of the show cause notice - Held that - Undisputedly, the appellant had reversed the cenvat credit, before issuance of the demand notice. Also, it is not in dispute that demand notice was issued three years after reversal of the credit. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped.....
2016 (2) TMI 108 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur-II
Claim of refund - relevant date - entitlement to refund after final judgement - period of limitation - whether or not the appellant filed the claim for refund in time as per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? - Held that - As per Section 11 B, the relevant date means in case where the duty becomes refundable as consequent of judgement, decree, order, or direction of appellate authority, appellate Tribunal, or any court, the date of such.....