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 461 to 470 of 470 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 13 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - credit on Aluminum extruded Profiles availed on the basis of five invoices issued by the Silverline Metals, Bhavnagar, though they have received Aluminum scrap - Held that: - the appellant had received Aluminum Extruded Profiles which is considered by than as Aluminum waste and scrap as consumption in the factory premises is not being disputed - the confirmation of the demand of cenvat credit as ineligibly availed is incorrect and unsustainable.

  Penalties u/r 26(2) of the CER, 2002 - Held that: - violation if any took place during the period March 2006 to Oct 2006 - provisions of Rule 26(2) can be invoked only after 1.3.2007 for imposing of penalties - penalties set aside.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 12 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs on which credit taken was written off - whether the appellant are required to reverse the credit availed on inputs alleged to have been written off in their books of accounts in accordance with Rule 3(5B) of CCR 2004? - Held that: - there is no evidence to the effect that the inputs whose value had been written down had been removed from the factory. Thus, reducing the value of the raw materials keeping in view the accounting principles and income tax benefit, if any, it cannot be construed that the value of the inputs are written off from the books of account and are not usable resulting into invoking of Rule 3(5B) of CCR 2004 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 11 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund claim - case of appellant is that they have wrongly paid an amount of 6% of the value of the exempted goods cleared for export - Held that: - the issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision in the case of Sharp Menthol India Ltd.’s case [2011 (4) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that the assessee was entitled to avail the CENVAT credit of duty paid on menthol used in the manufacture of exempted menthol crystals and utilize the said credit for payment of duty on clearance of peppermint oil either for home consumption or for export - the Appellant is not required to discharge 6% of the value of the exported Ethamotul HCL, which is exempted from duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 10 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - includibility - tooling/patterns which were first sold to customers of components and the same are used in the manufacture of plastic components - Rule 6 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - Held that: - after purchase of tooling by the customers it became the property of the customer and when the same was used by the appellant it was supplied the customer free of cost to the appellant, therefore the amortized value of such tooling must be added in the assessable value of the automobile parts manufactured and sold by the appellant to their customer - matter remanded to re-determine the quantum of demand only on the amortized cost in respect of number of components manufactured and sold to their customer - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 9 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Change in classification of goods - unless and until the classification list is finalized, whether the Show Cause Notice can be issued to the appellant to change their classification of goods?

  Held that: - Admittedly, the appellants were filing classification list which were assessed provisionally, in that circumstances, the show cause notice cannot be issued to the appellant to change the classification of goods, unless and until the classification list is finalized. Therefore, the show cause notices issued to the appellant are premature unless and until their classification list is finalized.

  SCN bad in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 8 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - appeal not preferred against Revenue - Held that: - As against the order dt 1.10.2012, no appeal has been preferred by the Revenue. The order of the First Appellate Authority dtd 1.10.2012 has attained finality in respect of the litigation entered by the appellant and the amounts lying in balance in the Cenvat account - Further litigation which has been entered into by the lower authorities by going into merits of the case is unwarranted and the Adjudicating Authority should have granted the refund to the appellant following the directions given by the First Appellate Authority in OIA dt 1.10.2012.

  The impugned order is set aside and the lower authorities to are directed to quantify the amount of refund that needs to be sanctioned and refund the same - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 7 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - input services - Revenue was of the view that since the said input services are being used by the appellant for the sale of their own manufactured goods as well as under the trading activities, they are not entitled to the Cenvat Credit relatable to the trading activities - Held that: - Tribunal in the case of Tricity Auto Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II [2016 (4) TMI 1172 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], where it was held that common input services used in trading as also manufacturing activities are not required to reverse the credit relatable to the trading activities prior to 01.04.2011 - Inasmuch as the period involved in the present appeal is prior to 01.04.2011, demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 6 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund of excess duty paid - denial on the ground that cenvat credit availed on Servo Chainkote by the LPG bottling plants had not been reversed, the CAS-4 certificated submitted by the appellant has not been accepted by the department and that the claims are hit by unjust enrichment and time bar.

  Held that: - All the relevant materials are now available with respect to costing of the LPG, CAS-4 certificate in respect of the product in question Servo Chainkote and accordingly, the whole exercise for the period needs to be redone and the excess payment so determined is required to be refunded.

  Matter remanded with direction to the adjudicating authority to rework out the incidence of duty as per the CAS-4 certificate on record, or now available with the appellant for the relevant period - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 5 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - common inputs used in the manufacture of their dutiable final products as well as exempted final products - non-maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR 2002 - Held that: - appellant assessee have cleared under chapter X procedure or on the basis of CT-2 certificates - following the decision in the case of CCE Vs. SRF Ltd [2003 (11) TMI 5 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the clearance under Chapter X or under bond is not the same thing as clearance of goods wholly exempt or goods chargeable to nil rate of duty. Therefore, the provisions of the Rule 57 C are not applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 4 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Clandestine manufacture and removal - 425 Transformers - demand on the ground that the goods have not been mentioned in the RG-1 register - Held that: - the Revenue in their memo of appeal have not been able to rebutt the findings given by the Lower Authorities - Admittedly, there is no evidence of clandestine removal of the goods; as also that the excess found transformers lying in the factory premises were meant for clandestine removal.

  In as much as, the transformers were sold to State Organizations and Power Corporation, the clearance of the same in a clandestine manner without payment of duty does not arise.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....2021222324