Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2018 2018 2018 (3) Central Excise - 2018 (3) 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 41 to 60 of 470 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 1647 - SC ORDER
  

  Manufacture or service - appellants case is that the learned Tribunal was plainly wrong in recording the finding that the Blinds in question are movable properties and can be removed/dismantled and consequentially imposing penalty. If that is so, the appellants may approach the learned Tribunal for rectification.

  Held that:- The appeals are disposed of in the above terms with liberty to the appellants to approach this Court once again, if necessary. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1622 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT Credit - Whether the appellants are entitled to cenvat credit of service tax paid on Membership fees to the Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factory Association?

  Held that:- This issue is covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in their own case M/s Coper Co Operative Sugar Ltd, Shri Kamrej Vibhag Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd Versus CCE & ST Surat-I & II [2017 (11) TMI 1680 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that the appellants are entitled to avail cenvat credit on membership fees of service tax paid to the Gujarat State Federation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1620 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal - order of rectification challenged - Held that:- It is very clear that against the order of rectification under Order 47 Rule 7, the appeal is not maintainable - the appropriate remedy for the appellant is to file appeal before the appropriate forum - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1608 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  CENVAT Credit - reversal of credit on inputs cleared as such - demand of duty with interest and penalty - Held that:- On perusal of the copy of ER-1 returns furnished along with the appeal records, it is seen that the appellant has disclosed the entire details of inputs cleared as such - As the ER-I returns clearly show the details of inputs cleared as such, the appellant cannot be saddled with suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty.

  The allegation of double credit availed is explained by the appellant that it was due to an inadvertent mistake.

  The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty alone without disturbing the confirmation of duty or the interest thereon - appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1600 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Refund of Education/Higher Education Cess - Area Based Exemption availed - Revenue held a view that the assessee-Appellants are not eligible for such refund as exemption is available only to excise duty - Held that:- The issue pertaining to the Education/Higher Education Cess has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. SRD Nutrients Pvt. Limited vs CCE, Guwahati [2017 (11) TMI 655 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein it was observed that the assessee-Appellants are entitled to the refund of Education/Higher Education Cess which was paid along with excise duty, once the excise duty itself is exempted - refund allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1551 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - ex-parte order - The Tribunal specifically queried but the appellant did not reply as to why the show cause notice was not responded to or why there was absence for personal hearing; both of which were admitted - Held that: - in the instant case the assessee cannot be termed to have acted with diligence. The assessee did not respond to the show-cause, failed to appear for personal hearing and challenged the order on grounds of ignorance of law. Then when the Tribunal allowed fresh consideration on terms, the condition imposed was not complied.

  There are no unreasonableness, in the condition imposed.

  There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay or interfere with the order passed - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1550 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Compounded levy scheme - Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco & Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination & Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - Held that: - the appellant was a registered dealer under the Central Excise Department, manufacturing and packing unmanufactured tobacco from registered premises. The said registered premises, was admittedly washed away during the month of June, 2011 due to heavy rain.

  The rejection of documentary evidence regarding purchase of the FFS machine is erroneous, as firstly the statement of Shri Beni Prashad Sharma is vague and secondly he has admitted that the said receipt No.299 is out of his bill book. Further oral evidence of Shri Beni Prashad Sharma have got no evidentiary value, as he was neither examined in the adjudication proceedings and the same is hit by Section 9D of the Central Excise Act - the appellant is liable to pay Central Excise duty on pro-rata basis only for two days for having started production on the FPS machine from 29/06/2011 for the month of June, 2011.

  Penalty - Held that: - the seized FFS Machine and finished products (BCT) have been destroyed in the custody of the Department and thus the appellant had already suffered substantial loss - penalty upheld.

  Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - the confiscation of vehicle -Maruti Eco bearing Registration No.UP41 N0892, is upheld but in the interest of justice the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 15,000/- - penalty imposed on Shri Mohammad Faheem under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, is also reduced to ₹ 5,000/-.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1549 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - clearance to sister unit - extended period of limitation - Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as in April 98, the clearance was on the higher side, the assessable value for the succeeding months has also to be adopted on the higher price - Held that: - there is no dispute that the entire 100% clearance was to their own sister unit who was availing MODVAT credit of duty paid by the present appellant - the entire exercise was revenue neutral in which case the malafide cannot be attributed to appellant - extended period of limitation not invokable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1548 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Interest - penalty - CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - GAR-7 challan - It was observed that no bills (for provisions made of the import of services) were received nor any payments were effected for the said services till the date of audit - contravention of Rule 7 of Point of Taxation Rules, 2011 read with Rule 4(7) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - Admittedly the credit availed by the assessee was lying in their accounts only without being utilised. In such a scenario, the confirmation of interest or imposition of penalty is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - Cement - Whether on Cement and Steel items used for foundation for installation of machinery, which is embedded to earth, the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on steel items in terms of Rule 2(k)/2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, or not? - Held that: - no Chapter of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) has been prescribed for the components, spares and accessories for consideration as capital goods. Thus, it is evident that irrespective of the classification of components, spares and accessories, when those are fitted to the machines/machineries of the above eligible Chapters, the same should also be considered as capital goods for availment of Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid thereon.

  It is no doubt a fact that the above machineries without its proper installation, will not be functional to the satisfaction level, in order to achieve the desired objective. Thus, applying the 'user test' the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that even though steel plates and M.S. Channels are used in fabrication of Chimney, would fall within the ambit of 'capital goods'.

  The eligibility to duty credit of the disputed good cannot be denied. Such eligibility either as ‘capital goods’ (accessories) or as ‘inputs’ has been examined and upheld by various decisions - reference allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1546 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Closure of proceedings - Section 11 AC (d) of CEA - whether the appellant is entitled to benefit of the provisions of amended Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, as amended vide Finance Act, 2015, which was passed on 14-15/05/2015? - Held that: - the provision of Section 11AC are very clear and there is no ambiguity. The second proviso for conclusion of all proceedings comprised in a show cause notice, if duty, interest and penalty as prescribed are paid within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of communication of the show cause notice - there is no merit in Revenue's appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1545 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Compliance with pre-deposit - delay in making pre-deposit - Appellants, being a sick unit, come under the jurisdiction of BIFR where they have moved an application before the BIFR regarding the pre-deposit of 25% - case of appellant is that once the MDRS has been sanctioned by BIFR, they were no more obliged to deposit the amount separately as per the order of the CESTAT - Held that: - the assessee-Appellants were asked by the Tribunal to make the pre-deposit of 25% of the penalty amount, but they went to the BIFR. No cash/credit was available with them to comply with the directions of the Tribunal.

  Presently, more than 25% deposit has already been made, though belatedly. In the circumstances, the delay in making the pre-deposit is condoned.

  Appeal is restored to its original number.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1544 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Delay in making deposit of pre-deposit - Held that: - it appears that in the instant case there is a delay of more than 22 years which is extraordinary and the Tribunal has no power to condone this extraordinary delay - the application for condonation of Delay in filing the restoration application is rejected - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1543 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund claim - input services - renting of immovable property service - insurance service - outward octroi - Customs House Agent charges - Xerox machine and printing machine - appellant filed a refund claim on the ground that they are eligible for cenvat credit in respect of the services - Held that: - appellant have paid the interest and penalty and requested for waiver of SCN. This act of the appellant closed the entire proceedings. Thereafter, neither the department can issue any SCN nor the assessee can change their stand for the reason that the department has no opportunity to issue any further SCN.

  In the present case, the appellant has opted for the provision of Section 11A(6) & (7). Therefore the proceedings stand concluded and no grievance can be raised on behalf of either side.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1542 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - input - welding electrodes - welding electrodes admittedly used in repair of plant & machinery of boiling house, pan, crystallizer, mill house machinery etc. being capital goods which are further used for manufacture of excisable goods - Held that: - appellant are entitled for credit availed by them on welding electrodes which are used by them for fabrication and repair and maintenance of their capital goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1541 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - dummy unit - Held that: - Admittedly the two units were separately registered with the other statutory authorities and were showing separate clearances of their final product - Merely because the partner of two units happen to be the same, by itself, is not sufficient to establish that one unit is dummy of another - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1540 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  SSI Exemption - use of brand name - Revenue entertained a view that as the appellant used the brand name of LIC they were not entitled to avail the SSI notification benefits - Held that: - the definition of brand name is not satisfied and the provision of clause 4 of the notification would not apply - Such dairies are being manufactured by the appellant under the job work on orders of LIC which were meant to be used as gifts by LIC and it cannot be said that the appellant has manufactured the same with the brand name of another person.

  Time Limitation - Held that: - the demand is hit by time bar inasmuch as the fact of appellant having manufactured dairies was disclosed to the Revenue well in advance.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1539 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Refund/Abatement claim - sealing of machinery - non-production of the notified goods - Held that: - the Superintendent of Central Excise uninstalled and sealed the FFS machine on 30.08.2016. There was no production of notified goods in their factory premises from 30.08.2016 to 14.09.2016 i.e. continuous period of 15 days - there is no reason to deny the benefit of abatement - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1538 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - time limitation - It is alleged in the show-cause notice that the closing balances of inputs lying in stock after physical verification were reduced to the extent of the quantity found short - Held that: - It is seen that the lower authorities have not examined the issue of limitation. Hence, it is required to be examined by the lower authorities - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1537 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Valuation - transfer from one unit to another - Department has taken the stand that valuation as per CAS-4 Standards cannot be adopted for earlier period - Held that: - the Apex Court in the case of Cadbury s [2006 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that such principles can be adopted even for the earlier period - valuation determined on the basis of CAS-4 standards, adopted by the appellant for payment of duty for this period, is in order and demand made in the impugned order for differential duty cannot be sustained and is set aside - demand set aside.

  Valuation - margin of profit - impugned order holds that the profit margin is required to be adopted - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of CCE, AURANGABAD Versus RAYMONDS LTD. [2006 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that Cost of production will have to be determined based on the actual cost of production at the factory of production alone and not the cost of production of textile units - demand upheld.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

1234567........ 24