Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions 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 Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 26 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.

• 2020 (11) TMI 893 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  
  CENVAT Credit - input services - sales commission paid to sister concern - outward transportation from factory to the buyers premises for the period from April 2008 to April 2010 - HELD THAT:- As per clause (3) of the Agreement entered into between the appellant and FMGIL, FMGIL promotes sale of products of the appellant by doing various activities including promotion and marketing of the products of the appellant, seeking orders, assistance in sale of products, maintaining good relations with customers, providing consultation and advice in relation to the above, receiving orders from customers in relation to the products, notifying the customers/prospective customers of all the terms and conditions of sale as determined by the appellants. Further, the input service as defined under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 explicitly includ....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 795 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  
  Rectification of Mistake - Refund of CENVAT Credit - Appellant Company has submitted that they have not received the refund order in question and the Revenue sought time but no proof has been provided by the Revenue with regard to service of communication of adjustment of refund amount and the same has been recorded by this Tribunal in the order itself - HELD THAT:- The appellant has claimed that the amount of ₹ 18,28,984/- has been debited on various dates and also intimated to the department through various letters with regard to adjustment of the amount of ₹ 18,28,984/-. The said fact has not been controverted by the Revenue during the course of argument. Moreover, it has been recorded by the Tribunal that no show cause notice has not been issued to the appellant for appropriation of the said amount paid by the appellant. F....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 725 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  CENVAT Credit - LAM ( Low Ash Metallurgical) COKE - fake invoices without supply of goods - time limitation - main basis of denying the Cenvat credit to the appellants are the two letters received by the department, one from the Municipal Commissioner and the other from the Postal authorities - HELD THAT:- The best evidence would have been for departmental officers to physically visit the place and draw a panchnama after making enquiries from the locality. No such documentary evidence is there on record - The department has not denied that the dealer, M/s Dankuni Steel Ltd was registered with the jurisdictional Central Excise formation. As per extant departmental instructions the premises were required to be physically inspected within 5 days of granting registration. It has to be presumed that these instructions were duly followed. In th....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 724 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  Duplication of appeal filed - against one impugned order two appeals were filed - HELD THAT:- Only one appeal needs to be filed against impugned order therefore, the second appeal No. E/12975/2019 and Cross Objection No. E/CO/10114/2020 are dismissed as infructuous.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 723 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  Refund claim - rejection of refund claim as being time-barred by computing the period upto the date of second presentation before the Tiruchirapalli Commissionerate - HELD THAT:- The refund claim has been first presented on 31-3-2010, the refund sanctioning authority has erred in computing the time-limit reckoning 16-8-2011 as the date of filing refund claim. The time-limit has to be computed from the date of clearance of the goods to the date of first presentation of the claim. The refund would be then well within time. The rejection of refund claim on the ground of being time-barred is set aside. The refund sanctioning authority is directed to look into the merits of the claim. The matter is remanded back to the refund sanctioning authority, who is directed to consider the claim on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 664 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The matters are covered by the Litigation Policy of the Government being F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019. Since the quantum of dispute in the present appeals is well within the amount as notified in the Litigation Policy before the Tribunal, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the appeals in terms of litigation policy vide Board’s instruction being F.No.390/Misc./116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019. The appeals are disposed off under the National Litigation Policy.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 663 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  CENVAT credit - electricity - captive consumption - common Cenvat availed inputs and input services in the generation of electricity without maintenance of separate records - Rule 6(3)(i) of the CCR - extended period of limitation - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- The self-same issue had fallen for consideration of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the GULARIA CHINI MILLS AND OTHERS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2013 (7) TMI 159 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Court observed that electrical energy generated from Bagasse is not covered under Chapter 27 of the CETA and is therefore, non-excisable thereby not attracting the provisions of Rule 6 at all as observed from para 22, 26 & 32 thereof. The said decision has also been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR L....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 623 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Maintainability of appeal - non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the case on merits, but has dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After filing appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant has deposited an amount of ₹ 10,00,000/-, which is sufficient to hear their appeal on merits. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to learned Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the case on merits, without insisting on any further pre-deposit - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 579 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  Application for early hearing of the appeal - application has been filed on the ground that the amount involved in the matter is quite substantial and also recurring in nature - HELD THAT:- Since we do not find any NOC available on the file from the earlier counsel, i.e. Shri Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, filed uptil now, we are not in position to hold that this early hearing application has been properly constituted and hence should not be maintainable. The Registry is directed to consider listing the appeal after three weeks on or about 26.11.2020 for final hearing if all the NOCs and other documents are completed before that date - Matter to be listed on 26.11.2020 for completion of records and hearing.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 549 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Clandestine Removal - 13683.05 MT of MS Billets - cogent, positive and concrete evidence to prove the said allegation, present or not - unaccounted purchase of various raw materials - reliability of third party documents - HELD THAT:- It is found from the show cause notice, that the allegation itself was that ‘in the specific question set out before him as to how he would disprove the facts of such clandestine clearance of their finished goods side by side their authorised clearance, whereas both of which have candidly confessed by M/s SPRML. Shri Mahapatra miserably failed to disprove the same whereby it led to the natural conclusion of conscious and organized modus operandi to evade legitimate Govt revenue in the guise of transaction that they have pretended to project themselves in clearing only authorised clearance of goods with....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 548 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  SSI Exemption - clandestine removal - manufacture of MCBs (Miniature Circuit Breaker) - use of Brand name of others - demand of duty by the Department is primarily worked out on the basis of a rough register (RUD-26), which was recovered from the factory, alleged to be showing movement of the goods i.e. removal of finished goods and receipt of raw/packing materials - retraction of statements - SCN issued about 20 days before the end of 5 years from the date of search - HELD THAT:- It is evident on the face of the record that the show cause notice was issued by way of wide guess work wherein duty demand of ₹ 1.22 crores was made approximately. Further, the Revenue in the proceeding before the Settlement Commissioner itself revised the demand at ₹ 49,50,711/-, thereafter in the adjudication proceedings, the demand was further re....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 544 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  CENVAT Credit - input services used for the Repair and Maintenance Service, etc of wind mills located far away from the factory - applicability of Rule 6(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The explanation inserted to Notification No. 6/2015- CE (NT) dated 01.03.2015 come in to play if the appellant sold the electricity generated the appellant’s counsel has confirmed that they never sold electricity generated from the wind mill - In the present case, appellant have never sold any electricity generated from the wind mill to anybody and , therefore, they are not hit by the mischief Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 542 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  CENVAT credit - input services - gardening services - appellants are engaged in manufacturing of gear motors - denial on account of nexus - HELD THAT:- The compliance of various environment related laws and factories act mandate clean environment in factory. Thus, the said service becomes essential for functioning of the factory. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 540 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  CENVAT Credit - input - input services - Cement, TMT Bar, Beam, Angle, Channels & Joist etc. - inward transportation services - HELD THAT:- The Ld. Adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of recovery of Cenvat credit on items such as Cement, TMT Bar, Beam, Angle, Channels & Joist by relying on the judgment of the Larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)],. However, the said judgment, as rightly pointed by the Ld. CA has been quashed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chattisgarh. Also, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court had in the case of SURYA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2014 (9) TMI 406 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] had disapproved the judgment of the Larger Bench. Thus, the Cenvat credit of the items along with Service tax credit o....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 539 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Application for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- Registry is directed to list the appeal for regular hearing on 28.10.2020. The Misc. Application for withdrawal of appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 490 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Reversal of CENVAT Credit - common inputs used for taxable as well as exempt goods - non-maintenance of separate records - Ammonia - intermediate goods/captive consumption - Sl.No.86 of Notification No.12/2012 - period of dispute is April, 2015 to Jan. 2016 and Feb., 2016 to March, 2016 - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Evidently, when the appellant clears part of Ammonia being Surplus, on payment of duty, admittedly, the final product being cleared is Ammonia. Therefore, Ammonia becomes the dutiable goods manufactured by the appellant. Majority of the Ammonia so produced, however, is used as an intermediate product and consumed for the manufacture of Urea. Thus, the final product of the appellant is Urea and SSP (exempt). Thus, the captively consumed Ammonia cannot be treated as exempted final product by any stretch of imagin....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 434 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Clandestine manufacture and removal - MS Ingots - Excess consumption of electricity - third party evidences - corroborative evidences or not - demand based on assumption and preseumption - demand of Central Excise duty along with imposition of Personal Penalty - xtended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that the demand has been confirmed only on the basis of the unsubstantiated evidence being the private records of the two brokers viz. M/s.Monu Steels and Kailash Traders and the statement of their proprietors. Further, it is found that the author of private records of M/s. Monu Steels - Mr. Bal Mukund was never examined by the Revenue. Further, M/s. S.K. Pansari during his cross examination has admitted that the said records were maintained under his instructions by Shri Bal Mukund Pansari. Further, Revenue have failed to fin....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 433 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  
  Cross-examination of witnesses denied - violation of principle of natural justice - Section 129A (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- To the earlier proceedings when the matter was remanded vide order dated 19.09.2014, this Tribunal has directed the adjudicating authority to consider the plea for cross examination of deponents by the adjudicating authority. By going through the impugned order, the cross examination of the persons has been rejected without assigning any reasons, therefore, the arguments made by the Ld. AR are futile as the impugned order for rejection of cross examination is not a speaking order. The way of working of the adjudicating authority cannot be appreciated in these terms - There are no merit in rejecting the request of cross examination without assigning any reasons. The adjudicating authority is directed t....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 432 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  SSI Exemption - supplies made to merchant exporters against Form 'H' and Form ‘ST-49’ - denial of exemption under Notifications dated March 1, 2002 and March 1, 2003 by treating the supplies made to merchant exporters against Form 'H' and Form ‘ST-49’ as clearances for home consumption - HELD THAT:- The value of branded goods (printed material) cannot also be included in the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of SSI exemption. The appellant manufactures and clears the printed material for home consumption which do not bear any branded name. The appellant also manufactures printed material which bears the brand name of the buyers. In terms of paragraph 2(vii) of Notifications dated March 1, 2002 and March 1, 2003, one of the conditions for availing SSI exemption is that the aggregate value....... + More

---

• 2020 (11) TMI 351 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Irregular availment of Cenvat credit - Ineligible inputs - It is the case of the department that the said inputs as claimed to have been received by the appellant assessee in their factory premises on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. Roshanlal Bhagirathmal are not the eligible inputs for the purpose of taking credit in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Central Excise Rules, 2002, as the same were not purchased from the said dealer - CBIC vide Circular No. 1003/10/2015-CX dated 05.05.2015 - HELD THAT:- From the Circular, it is unambiguously clear that if the invoice issued by the manufacturer contains the details of the Appellant as consignee, they are entitled to Cenvat credit even if the buyer is unregistered. The Tribunal in HYDRO ELECTRO MACHINERY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III [2017 (2) TMI 876 - CESTAT MUMBAI] ....... + More

---