Showing 1 to 20 of 58718 Records
Central Excise - Case Laws
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.....
2016 (2) TMI 107 - CESTAT MUMBAI
M/s Alvita Pharma Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Recovery of rebate claim - maintainability of appeal before Tribunal in terms of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act - Held that - In the present case, we find that the rebate claims arose from the export of excisable goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The contention of the department before the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the Assistant Commissioner had allowed rebate on the goods exported at 12 whereas the rate of duty o.....
2016 (2) TMI 106 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Valiant Communication Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Delhi-I
Cost recovery charges - whether the appellant never opted to operate under cost recovery scheme, confirmation of amount under the said scheme by the authorities below is not proper and justified? - Held that - The appellant vide its letter dated 15.12.2009 had requested the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise to deposit the MOT charges instead of cost recovery charges for the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010. Since the dispute .....
2016 (2) TMI 105 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa
Valuation - free distribution of physician sample - whether valuation is to be done on pro rata value of the sale pack of the said physician samples of medicines - Held that - valuation of the physician sample of the medicines needs to be done on the basis of cost of production 15 as profit margin BR BR Levy of penalty - Held that - Since the issue of valuation of physician sample was being litigated during the relevant period, we re of the firm .....
2016 (2) TMI 104 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s Shri Khatu Shyam Industries And Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vapi Versus Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-Vapi And Shri Manish Ramavtar Agarwal
Clandestine removal - cross examination of the buyers and brokers - Held that - The allegation of the clandestine removal cannot be established merely on the basis of the statement of the buyers and brokers and the documents recovered from the buyer without any enquiry of the assessee. It is also noted the statement of the partner of the assessee is un-corroborative nature. In any event, the cross examination of the buyers and brokers were not al.....
2016 (2) TMI 103 - CESTAT MUMBAI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus RAMKUMAR AND SONS PVT. LTD.
Adjudication power - Classification - whether the product manufactured by respondent is rough forging , and merits classification under 73.26 as claimed by the respondent or 7207.10 as confirmed by the first appellate authority? - Held that - The matter needs to be adjudicated by the first appellate authority inasmuch, the dispute of classification as put forth by the show-cause notice was whether the product would merit classification under Chap.....
2016 (2) TMI 102 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maneesh Export (EOU) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur
Maintainability of appeal - appellants were issued a notice for maintainable, as the Registry has noticed a defect that proof of pre-deposit is insufficient - Held that - The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as non-maintainable for lack of compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 35F.
2016 (2) TMI 68 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Precision Metals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad
Equal penalty imposed under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - There is no allegation regarding fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of fact which are required as per Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act to impose equal amount of penalty. Moreover, once the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the interest on the ground that the cenvat cr.....
2016 (2) TMI 67 - CESTAT MUMBAI
M/s Cipla Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
Refund - valuation - quantity discount given after clearance of goods from factory to their depot - Rule 7 - appellant argues that assessable value in such circumstances should be the assessable value arrived at when goods were sold from the depot to the independent customer i.e. the price after allowing the quantity discount. BR BR Held that - The price at which the goods are cleared from the factory to the depot does not become the assessable v.....
2016 (2) TMI 66 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Arbes Tools Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II
Failure to pay the duty on time - Penalty under Section 11AC - Held that - A perusal of invoice No.16 dated 8.6.2005 issued by the appellant clearly shows that though the duty has been charged, but the same was not deposited. Further, on the invoice, it is clearly mentioned that no sales tax is charged as the goods are being transferred to their own unit No.II which is situated in Andheri (East) and it appears that the goods were intended to be t.....