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

Court

Law

Citation -


Showing 1 to 20 of 58755 Records

Central Excise - Case Laws

 

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 .....


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.....


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