Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (7) Central Excise - 2008 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 321 to 326 of 326 Records

• 2008 (7) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Adverse entry against appellant, Dt. Commissioner of Central Ex. & Customs – representation against that adverse entry rejected by both Chief Commissioner & Central Govt.– plea of petitioner is that Chief Commissioner & Central Govt. are bias – held that Chief Commissioner and the Central Government are very high authorities and they have considered the representations of the appellant, so there is no bias - plea was not taken before Tribunal or HC so cannot be taken for the first time before us

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 21 - HIGH COURT DELHI
  

  Waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty/penalty - petitioner’s appeals in the first & second rounds have succeeded and in the three successive adjudication orders the aggregate duty / penalty amount has dropped radically from 5 crores to 1.41 crores - held that the petitioner’s appeal before the tribunal ought to be heard on the basis of the deposit of Rs. 1.50 lacs already made by the petitioner - petitioner is undergoing genuine financial hardship - now it is reduced from 1.41 crore to 64 lacs

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 16 - SC ORDER
  

  SC dismissed the appeal after condoning the delay - earlier CESTAT (2007 (7) TMI 152 - CESTAT, KOLKATA) held that Inputs integrally connected with manufacture of final product are only eligible for credit - Credit cannot be denied mere on procedural mistake - However credit denied on non-compliance with rules is justified - Heavy penalty not justified

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Liquid hair dyes – classification - there was no specific entry relating to "hair dyes" under CET however, "hair lotion" is specified under Tariff Item 14F - Demand under Tariff Item 14F of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 – said product could not be treated as a lotion to be used as a scalp or hair nourisher or for medicinal purposes - appellant's preparation was poisonous and had to be used with great care – demand according to Tariff Item 14F was erroneous

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Exemption to 100% EOU – Sale of goods to DTA manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India – Original authority denied the exemption since the goods were manufactured from the indigenous inputs – Tribunal allowed the exemption under notification no. 8/97 – SC has remanded the matter to tribunal for de-novo consideration, whether “consumable” falls within the broader scope of the words “raw materials?”

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 1 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Credit on channel, angles, joints, squares, equal angles of iron & steel used for installation of batch vessel – goods once brought in factory for use in the principal plant & machinery, which are directly used in mfg. of excisable articles, are the capital goods - Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that aforesaid items used for installation of batch vessel form an essential part of the plant and machinery, therefore, credit is not deniable – no substantial question of law is involved

  ---

1 ....1314151617