Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2013 2013 2013 (12) Central Excise - 2013 (12) 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 301 to 320 of 388 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Violation of Principle of natural justice – Opportunity of being heard not granted to the assessee – matter regarding the duty and pre-deposit travelled till Supreme Court – Held that:- The appellant directed that there should not be any further allegation against the Adjudicating Authority and a cooperative attitude should be followed and should come out with clean hands to defend the allegations in show cause notice filing a detailed reply to show cause notice - The Authority should also in all fairness do justice to the appellant granting reasonable length of time to file reply to show cause, so that the appellant shall get full opportunity to defend its case – The appeal remanded back to the adjudicatory authority for reconsideration of the issue as expeditiously as possible – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 394 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Black Tea removed on the budget day - New Levy to be Imposed - Goods removed after 05 00 p.m. before mid-night of budget day, whether the new levy would be imposed as per Rule 224 (2A) of the erstwhile Rules, 1944 - Whether the undertaking given by the appellant under Rule 224(2A) would cause levy of duty at the enhanced rates by Notification dated 01.03.2000, when the clearances were effected on 29.02.2000, after 11 00 a.m. and before 05 00 p.m. – Held that:- The differential duty on enhancement of rate of duty on the budget day had been rightly recovered - there is no enhancement of duty by notification - it is a case for imposition of levy by Finance Bill, 1999 - tea was 'nil' rate of duty prior to 27.02.1999 - By Finance Bill, 1999, duty was imposed, which would be forced into law on the midnight - the clearances made by the appellants before midnight, no demand can be raised – order set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 393 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Invocation of extended period of limitation – Held that:- There is no mention in the Show Cause Notice with regard to invoking extended provision against the appellant – Following Commissioner Central Excise Commissionerate Vs. VAE VKN Industries Pvt Ltd [2013 (10) TMI 30 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - there is no case of demand of interest invoking extended period of 5 years - the demand has been raised beyond the 1 year Show Cause Notices are clearly hit by the time limitation and the time barred – the time limitation of 1 year from the relevant date for recovery of the principal amount, will also be applicable for recovery of interest as well - Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 392 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Classification Coconut oil in small packing of 200ml and less – Chapter 33 OR Chapter 15 of Central Excise Tariff Act – Held that:- Edible Coconut Oil packed and sold in the packing of capacity of 200ml and less is classifiable under Chapter Heading 15 of the Central Excise Tariff and not under Chapter 33 of the Tariff - The edible Coconut oil who packed in the packing of more than 200ml the same is classifiable under Chapter 15 of Excise Tariff – Relying upon AISWARYA INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., PONDICHERRY [2008 (7) TMI 771 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - When the same edible oil is packed in the packing of 200ml or less cannot be considered as preparation for use on hair in the absence of any evidence that the composition of both types of oils are different – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 391 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Clandestine removal of goods - Unexplained shortage of Cenvat credit – Absence of Evidences – Held that:- The fact that the department is comparing the stock of raw material as mentioned in the RG 23A register as on 3rd August 2004 with the stock of raw material actually found in that day and the entries regarding the issue of raw material had been made only upto 30th June 2004, for determining the shortage of inputs, if any, the figure regarding the quantity of raw material consumed should have been updated after taking into account the quantity of raw material consumed during the month of July 2004 and without doing this, the question of shortage or excess cannot be determined.

  Though an opportunity was given to the department to rectify this mistake, this has not been done - The department has neither accepted the figures of consumption of raw material during July 2004 as given by the respondent nor has made any effort to ascertain the quantity of inputs consumed on the basis of production of finished products - The approach of the department is absurd - in absence of any evidence showing clandestine removal it cannot be alleged that there was unexplained shortage of Cenvat credit availed input and the same had been illicitly removed without reversal of credit – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 390 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation of Free samples - Free samples cleared without paying duty on MRP basis – Held that:- In respect of physician's sample being manufactured by job worker and sold to the principal manufacturer, valuation is to be done as per UJAGAR PRINTS ETC. ETC. Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] judgement of Apex Court - Appellant's are not assessing duty as envisaged in Ujagar Print's case, which requires specifying cost of all the raw materials, packing material supplied by the principal manufacturer, job charges and profit element - Principal manufacturer on his own dictating the assessable value to be declared - This has come out clearly in the statement mentioned by the appellant has not rebutted the same - Even Ld. Advocate is claiming that they are declaring value as per CAS-4 - CAS-4 valuation scheme is applicable for goods meant for capative consumption, which is not the case here.

  The transaction between appellant and principal manufacturer cannot be considered as on principal to principal basis - the only way left is to assess the value based upon M.R.P. of similar goods after giving abatement as prescribed and on proportionate basis - This is what has been ordered by Commissioner (Appeals) – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 389 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Mandatory requirement of authorization not made – Held that:- The note sheet enclosed to the Misc. application clearly indicates that a note was placed before two Commissioners who were from Jaipur-I jurisdiction and Jaipur II jurisdiction - there was no Committee of Members either on 12.07.2010 or 14.07.2010 nor they had any views expressed on the note to record their decision - There is no empty formality to be followed in law when the law requires certain duties to be discharged by the Committee of Commissioners - A casual approach has been made by the Members of the Committee just to endorse their signature to the note of the Noting Officer who placed his note on 09.07.2010 - Such a practice is not acceptable to law as has been held in the case of CCE, Delhi-I vs. Kundaliya Industries [2012 (8) TMI 789 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 388 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim as per Notification No. 56/2002-CE – Held that:- The assessee failed to receive the goods in their factory within the stipulated period of six months, they paid the amount as duty on the said goods and on receiving back the said goods, filed the refund claim under Section 11B of the Act - The Rule 16 is different from Rule 16 (C), as the former deals with only those goods on which duty was paid at the time of removal of goods - goods were cleared without payment of duty under the special procedure laid down under Rule 16 (C) of the Rules and duty was paid subsequently when goods could not be brought back in the factory within six months period - Secondly, Rule 16 (1) deals with those goods which are received back in the factory for recondition, repair or re-made whereas in the present case goods were not received back because of above stated purposes, but received back after carrying out tests under the special procedure for removal of excisable goods laid down as per provisions of Rule 16 (C) of the Rules - Rule 16 is different from Rule 16 (C) and the refund stands rightly sanctioned – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Determination of Assessable value of goods - Sale of goods at the depot – Price at which goods sold at depot as per Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima facie, the Revenue has not placed any material to show that the price at which the 'urinal casing' was sold to the applicants was vitiated in any manner - Before proceeding to adopt valuation of the goods sold by Inova to PRPL under the Valuation Rules, reason why the transaction value cannot be accepted has to be recorded - No forceful reasoning for such rejection is coming forward from Revenue - The conditions in the contract cannot be interpreted to mean that the price of the goods was influenced in any manner by the conditions - The conditions appear to be common among parties entering into contract for manufacture of such specialised items which cannot be sold to public at large and in respect of which some type of IPR may be involved.

  high margins are noticed in most cases were a small manufacturer manufactures goods under the brand name of a well-known company which is able to market the product - There is no legal provision under excise laws controlling the profit margin or the premiums that may accrue on brand name – Prima facie the Revenue has not made out a case – Pre-deposits waived for the admission of appeal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 347 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Application for Restoration – Condonation of Delay - Held that:- Delay of one day condoned –The appellant is not vigilant to pursue its remedy - Merely filing the application for restoration of appeal, the appellant kept quiet to cause appearance and explain his case - for absence of the appellant, the delay condonation application was dismissed observing non-prosecution - The history of the case and absence of the appellant, clearly shows that the appellant is not keen except abusing the process of law making repeated prayer for restoration – application dismissed – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 346 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Condonation of Delay – Delay in filing appeals - Held that:- Relying upon COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, ANANTNAG & ANR. Versus MST. KATIJI & ORS. [1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME Court] - The order were received by the applicant just before passing of Final Order dated 19.8.2010 - It appears from e-mail communication that the Advocate sent the draft appeal on 22.9.2010 - the applicant was vigilant and diligent to follow up the proceedings time to time for the different periods - there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fide - if the delay is not condoned, it may lead to grave injustice and the COD applications deserved to be accepted.

  It is apparent on the face of record that in the applicants own case, for earlier period, the Tribunal passed Final Order, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Once, it is ascertained that the lapse on the part of the applicant cannot be construed as gross negligence then length of delay is not so relevant - the applicant took initiative to file the appeal as evident from the e-mail communication - the applicant was not negligent and inactive - it is a fit case for condonation of delay of filing the appeals – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 345 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Eligibility for the Exemption Notification - Revenue was of the view that what was being manufactured by the appellant was not sub-assembly of scanners but in reality was Ultra-Sound Scanner system – Held that:- Software CD cannot be considered as a part in the present technological regime - the scanner can be said to consist of only two main parts as received in the hands i.e. scanner assembly and the probe - the scanner has to be considered as the main item and the 'probe', a part of the scanner and a necessary part - the appellant/assessee has not been able to make out a case and what is cleared by them is not a part of scanner and thus is not eligible for the benefit of exemption notification – Decided against Assessee.

  Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation – Held that:- It is a settled principle that merely because an assesee chooses an interpretation beneficial to him, there can be an allegation of suppression or misdeclaration - Appellant cannot be found fault with for coming up with an interpretation and availing the benefit which was not available to them - the order of the Commissioner limiting the demand to the normal period and not imposing the penalty was an order which rendered justice to the appellant/assessee without being unfair to the Revenue – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Application for Rectification of Mistake – Bar of Limitation - Power to condone delay of how much days – Delay of 233 days - Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days in terms of Section 35 was decided against assessee – Held that:- The appellants advocate, at the time of appearance before the Tribunal on 7.2.2012 fairly agreed that there was delay of 233 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and the legal issue that the Commissioner has no power to condone the huge delay - The submission that the advocate, appearing today as he was not the advocate who caused appearance on 7.2.2012, when the other advocate appearing for the appellant agreed to the date of receipt of order by the assessee and consequent delay of 233 days in filing the appeal cannot be accepted – there was no reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as there is no mistake – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 343 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Restoration of Appeal – Doctrine of merger - Assessee contended that subsequent to dismissal of appeal by the Hon’ble Supreme Court they have deposited the amount of Ten Lakhs Rupees – Held that:- There is no direction by the High Court for recalling of the order of dismissal - In the absence of the same and in the light of the fact that the Tribunal’s order stand merged with the High Court and subsequently with the Apex Court order, the Tribunal has no powers to recall such orders - Following Commissioner of Customs vs. Lindt Exports [2011 (9) TMI 609 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - when the order of the Tribunal dismissing appeals on account of non-deposit is upheld by Hon’ble High Court, the same is merged with the Hon’ble High Court’s order and attains finality - Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain application for restoration of the appeals as it becomes functus officio – Decided against Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 342 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Export obligation not fulfilled - Goods partly diverted out of EHTP - Violation of post-import conditions of the Notification No. 13/81-Cus. read with Notification No. 53/97-Cus. – Contravention of the condition of Bond and Notification No. 1/95-CE and under Rule 196 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Central Excise duty benefit availed on the indigenous material procured under CT-3 - Held that:- The applicant had not intimated the non-availability of the relied upon documents but they only requested for extension of time to file reply to the show-cause notice - they have not filed any reply to show-cause notice - the jurisdictional Superintendent stated that in the factory location, there is no building or machinery belonging to the applicant but a housing project is being executed at that site by another company by name M/s. Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. - BIFR recorded that the possession of the assets of applicant-company has been taken over by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and abated the reference in accordance with third proviso to Section 15(1) of SICA - the secured creditors and Government Departments are at liberty to file/pursue suit, if already filed, before the competent court of law to recover the dues from the company.

  Non-production of References – Waiver of Pre-deposits of Excise duty as well as custom duty – Held that:- The applicants have failed to produce any reference that official liquidator stands appointed in the matter - at the location of the factory a housing project is being constructed by Akshaya Pvt. Ltd. - the applicants directed to deposit the entire amount of customs duty and the excise duty along with interest as pre-deposit – stay not granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 341 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Quantity- based exemption - Cenvat credit taken on input services lapsed on 1.4.2008 - Recoverable under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – Waiver of Pre-deposit – held that:- The appellant opted out of the CENVAT credit scheme on 1.4.2008, with effect from which date they were availing quantity- based exemption from payment of duty on their final product - The demand is in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 of the CCR, 2004 - the appellant should pre-deposit the amount of CENVAT credit, in case they have already utilized and, if the credit has not been utilized, they shall not utilize it till the final disposal of the appeal - the CENVAT credit have already been utilized, the appellant shall pre-deposit the amount – stay not granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 340 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Chakdo rickshaws cleared – Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- The appellant is a proprietor of M/s. Raj Auto Industries and has accepted in his statement that they were doing some work for M/s. Rajshakti Automobile Works in assembling chakdo rickshaws - the issue involved in this case as regards the penalty imposed on the appellant needs to be gone into detail as to the evidences which are laid by the appellant in his defences - the appellant has not made out a case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount - the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000 as pre-deposit – Upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 339 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Clandestine removal of chakdo rickshaws – Whether is appellant is job worker or not for M/s. Raj Auto Industries – Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- The appellant has been penalised under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - the appellant is a job worker and is also holding a central excise registration as a manufacturer and cleared three-wheel vehicles on payment of central excise duty - In the absence of any demand of the duty from the appellant, it is not understandable how the penal provisions under Rule 25 can be fastened on the appellant and he be penalised under violation of the provisions of the Central Excise Act - the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 338 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Activity manufacture or not – Mis-declaration of Yacht Ashena as being wooden cargo vessel – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The appellant has brought to notice that the boat/yacht which was further worked upon by them was in fact shown to be as constructed/manufactured by M/s. Wadia Boat Builders - the appellant had only done part of the work like fitting of pipelines, fuel tanks and engines - The issue is arguable one as to whether appellant is a manufacturer or not needs to be gone into detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of the appeal - the amount deposited by the appellant is enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal – pre-deposits waived till the disposal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 337 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Addition of notional interest - Value of the goods manufactured on job work basis – Held that:- The addition of the advance amount received by M/s. INDAL from M/s. Powergrid Corporation in the hands of present appellant, who is only the job worker, cannot be said to be in accordance with the law - the amount was never received by the appellant and the Revenue has not shown that on account of receipt of said advance by M/s. INDAL the assessable value in the hands of present appellant gets depressed - for adding notional interest on advance received from the customers, Revenue has to establish that the assessable value get depressed on account of such receipt of advance – Following Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai vs. ISPL Industries Ltd. [2003 (4) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – the test charges received by M/s. INDAL, from M/s. Powergrid Corporation of India, for conducting the special tests before delivery of the goods, cannot be said to have any relation with the manufacture – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

1 ....121314151617181920