Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (10) Central Excise - 2008 (10) 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 161 to 180 of 190 Records

• 2008 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  "Aluminium Casseroles" - what is manufactured is not a conventional casserole - impugned product is with the lid, is used in Railways, Air-crafts, etc. for providing packaged food - Aluminium Casseroles manufactured by them cannot be considered as container but have to be considered as trays and therefore are classifiable as articles for table use - product not classifiable u/h 76.12 as container but classifiable u/h 76.15 - it has to be accepted that the recommendations of Harmonised System Committee being of a great persuasive value and have to be considered for the purpose of determination of classification

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 177 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cenvat credit on inputs i.e. Steel plates, sheets, etc. used in the manufacture of 'clinker silo' which are actually storage tank for the final products in the cement factory - 'clinker silos' are nothing but storage tanks and they are mentioned in the list of the capital goods - fact that the silos are immovable property and not excisable is irrelevant - in terms of the Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k), as so long as the inputs are used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer, the credit could not be denied

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 161 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Tribunal in impugned order has held that classification list was filed on 4-4-1994 and, therefore, demand for the period 4-4-1994 to 30-9-1994 is barred by limitation as the SCN was issued on 31-3-1995 - applicants never brought to the notice of the Department about the manufacture of crayplas compound - Bona fide belief is not blind belief - submissions of the Revenue that “relevant date” is date of filing of return - For monthly return of September, 1994, the “relevant date” was 5-10-1994 and the SCN was issued within six months from that date. Therefore, the demand for the period September, 1994 was not barred by limitation - ROM application filed by the Revenue is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 157 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Appellants availed Modvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by registered dealer – allegation of non receipt of inputs - summons were issued to the owner of the trucks, who did not respond and the address as available on the record is fake - appellants confirmed the transportation of the goods along with modvatable documents as well as recipient of payment in respect of these transport transactions – however, Revenue had not disputed genuineness of truck nos. So, credit cannot be denied on the ground that the address of the truck owners available are fake

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 155 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Rule 57T(8) of the CER, 1944 permitted credit on attested photocopies of B/E if the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the duplicate copy of invoice or triplicate copy of B/E have been lost in transit – but Appellant did not intimate the Assistant Commissioner about the loss of the documents – however, denial of huge credit mere for procedural lapse, is not justified – credit allowed but appellant should be penalized for his lapse – contention of appellant that Guide should be considered for capital goods credit as a part of the Coke Oven Battery is without any merit – appeal partly allowed

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 152 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Interest on the rebate claims - delay in sanction of rebate – no any reason to interfere with the impugned order holding that interest is liable to paid when there is delay in payment unless Revenue is able to show that rebate claim was incomplete - whether the Letter of Undertaking may be used for export of exempted goods also - it is clear that the all goods specified in CET are excisable goods whether it is dutiable or exempted - LUT is therefore valid for the export of all excisable goods i.e. dutiable as well as exempted goods - validity of the LUT therefore cannot be restricted for the export of exempted goods i.e. goods attracting “nil” rate of duty in CET

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 151 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  SSI exemption - brand name SUNCA does not belong to the appellant-firm and it belongs to a third party therefore, applicant-firm is not eligible for exemption u/not. no.8/2000-C.E on the basis of value of clearances – since appellant have admitted the manufacture of goods with the brand name of others and clearing clandestinely and maintaining accounts in Kachcha pads, submission that the value of clearances adopted for demanding duty has been inflated, is not acceptable – penalty on son of proprietor is sustainable as his involvement in evasion of duty is established – however penalty cannot be imposed on proprietor when penalty has been imposed on proprietary concern

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 143 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Returned goods - modification - Motor received back, then it is dismantled and certain modifications are made and later is cleared again – these modification cannot be tread as manufacture – “stator” and “rotor” were already in the Motor so modification in them would not amounts to manufacture - Once it is considered that the process does not amount to manufacture, then the appellants should pay an amount equal to the credit taken by them

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 139 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure without investigation – since seized goods (raw material) have been found entered in stock register and nothing to prove wrongful availment of credit; confiscation cannot be upheld mere for non-entry in computer - continuing detention of goods not justifiable – demand of security to release the goods not justified – power of conducting search, seizure or investigation has to be exercised reasonably by excise authorities - authorities are not expected to adopt unreasonable attitude

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 122 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Resin treated polyester fabric obtained in tubular form in process which are used captively in mfg. of Gauntlet – Gauntlet is used by manufacturers of electric storage battery – no submission from Department to prove that the intermediate unfinished goods are marketable and excisable - no contrary decision has been shown by revenue against the Tribunal’s order in the case of Chloride Industries where similar goods were held non-marketable and hence not excisable – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 110 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Violation of principle of natural justice - Commissioner (Appeals) not granted opportunity of hearing to petitioner, while deciding the stay application - In the Scheme of a taxing statute, unless expressly or by necessary implication excluded, personal hearing is desirable at the appellate stage, though effect of denial of opportunity differs from case to case – impugned order is quashed – Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 109 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cultures of micro-organisms for biocontrol (microbes) namely, Bio-Catch, Bio-Cure (F), Bio-Cure (B), Bio-Power and Priority – microbes were live cultures of fungi or bacteria used for plant growth through biocontrol of insects/pests – CH 3808 covers insecticides, fungicides & rodenticides - therefore CH 3808 doesn’t cover insecticides & fungicides with cultures of microbes as basis - impugned microbes were cultures of micro-organisms which aided growth of plants and were classifiable u/ch 3002

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 108 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Refund of unutilized credit on exports - appellant had opted to avail SSI exemption u/not. 8/03-C.E from 1-4-05 - surplus credit accumulated in March, 2005 and claimed in April, 2005 - As per Rule 11 of CCR, the credit relating to inputs in stock as on 1-4-05 alone had to lapse. This does not affect the assessee’s entitlement to claim refund of Cenvat credit accumulated and available in balance as on 31-3-05 - assessee is entitled to claim refund of accumulated credit which it could not utilize

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 96 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claimed of the amount deposited by the petitioners under threat of arrest - petitioner pray for not taking any coercive action of arrest or detention – held that unless there is assessment and demand, amount deposited cannot be appropriated – detention of goods for indefinite period is not justified - respondent is directed to return the amount deposited and release the goods on furnishing undertaking in terms identical to the terms in Form B-11 without any bank guarantee/cash security

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 94 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Period of 2 ½ years elapsed between date of hearing and date of order – delay in passing order by tribunal – tribunal in its order merely noting that written submissions were considered but not recording what were the contentions of respondent – tribunal changed its order and inserted sentence after passing of order – mixing up of facts with facts of some other case – admissibility of the refund claimed by assessee is required to be heard afresh by the Tribunal - case remanded

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 93 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  In the order of the Tribunal the penalty imposed upon the Director has been set aside - Whether the impugned order made by the Tribunal can be said to be an order made in accordance with law – Held, no - Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalty without assigning any convincing and cogent reasons – tribunal did not applied mind before passing the order - Impugned order is set aside

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 91 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Manufacture of uncoated kraft paperboards - certain cuttings and trimmings arising during mfg. were used captively - exemption Notification No. 67/95 – benefit claimed at later stage but not at time of filing declaration - held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred from claiming such benefit at later stage - however exemption is subjected to fulfillment of conditions specified in notification ibid - matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 90 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Manufacture of uncoated kraft paper - certain cuttings and trimmings arising during mfg. were used captively - benefit of Notification No. 10/96 claimed at later stage but not at time of filing declaration - held that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred from claiming such benefit at later stage - however exemption is subjected to fulfillment of conditions specified in notification ibid - matter remanded

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 76 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Price escalation – held that payment of duty under supplementary invoice is covered u/s 11A (2B) – held that interest is leviable u/s 11AB from the first date of the month succeeding the month in which duty was paid in the first instance in terms of the original invoice – held that additional amount paid by buyer in terms of supplementary invoice issued by the assessee after removal of the goods can be considered to be part of the T.V. – Tribunal’s LB decision in Arvind Mills Ltd. ,is disagreed

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 75 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Allegation of department is that the value of software is includible in A.V. of the OCB Exchange – since software is supplied separately as per purchase orders, value of the software can not be included in the value of the OCB Exchanges on ground that the OCB Exchanges cannot function without the software – since software is separately identified as an excisable commodity in Central Excise Tariff, value of software is not required to be included in the value of the hardware

  ---

1 ....5678910