Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 2007 (4) Central Excise - 2007 (4) 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 221 to 240 of 246 Records

• 2007 (4) TMI 55 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  SSI Exemption – Department contended that appellant used the brand name ‘paras’ which belong to other person and accordingly liable to pay demand alongwith penalty and interest – Held that appellant is not liable to pay duty, interest and penalty

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 54 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Dutiability – Department contended that appellant is liable to duty on the waste and scrape arise during manufacture of exempted products and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty – Held that demand and penalty sustained

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 52 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of duty – Revenue contended that manufacture is to reverse the Cenvat credit availed at the time of receipt of the capital goods in case of capital goods removed from their factory – Held that revenue contention is right

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 51 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Classification – Revenue contended that appellant products(chocos) were classifiable under Heading 18.04 but as per appellant classifiable under Heading 19.04 – Held that the good classifiable under Heading 18.04

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 49 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat – Credit utilize for payment of duty on all their final product cleared to DTA has been disallowed by the lower authorities and accordingly demand for differential duty alongwith penalty – Held that appellant eligible to utilize such credit for payment of duty

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 38 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Manufacture – Appellant contended that there is no process to bring into existence separate goods having separate name and known in market differently than the item which had been brought by magnetic process into their elements – Held that the process not amount to manufacture

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 37 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Department demand interest from the appellant on the ground that they had manufactured goods on job work basis for impugned customer – Held that department demand of interest was not sustained

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 35 - CESTAT,BANGALORE
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Alleged that the bought out item ‘Alcopanel’ used in the manufacture of aluminium doors and window structure are includible in the assessable value – Held that the value of alcopanel not includible in the assessable value of aluminium doors

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 33 - CESTAT,BANGALORE
  

  Classification – Appellants claim that the good produce by him as ‘veterinary Medicaments’ falling under Chapter No. 3003.10 but department classify under Chapter No. 3307.90 – Held that the appellant product fall under Chapter No. 3003.10

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 32 - CESTAT,BANGALORE
  

  Classification – Revenue contended that the appellant goods is classifiable under Tariff Heading 2818.20 as Aluminium oxide rather than CTH 26.06 as Bauxite contended by appellant – Held that revenue contention is correct and said good classifiable under Tariff Heading 2818.20

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 31 - CESTAT,BANGALORE
  

  Penalty and Interest –Alleged that appellant is not entitle for credit on the molasses and finance oil – Held that credit is admissible and no need to reverse it and penalty and interest set aside

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 28 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
  

  Revenue contended that (i) four companies are interconnected, so price at which sale to marketing company not accepted for valuation (ii) SSI Exemption to one unit (KPPL) not allowed – Held (i) price is not different either for independent buyer or marketing company, so the said price acceptable (ii) allowed

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 21 - CESTAT, MUMBAI,
  

  Classification – Revenue contended that the appellant good (fruit juices) are covered under Chapter 22, SH 2202.99 but as per appellant it classifiable under SH 2001.10 of CETA- Held the said good classifiable under Chapter Heading 2001.10

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 20 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund of interest – Appellant demand for refund of interest which he paid earlier on belief of delayed payment by way of reversal of Cenvat credit taken on capital goods installed outside their factory – Held refund is admissible

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 19 - HIGH COURT, ALLAHABAD
  

  Two cases were arises such as (i) Solvant 75 is whether consider as waste or by-product and (ii) Section IIA of CESA 1944 are to be read into Rule 57P of CER, 1944 – Held (i) No (ii) Sec IIA should be held to apply not only to cash recovery part but also to the credit adjustment part of Rule 57P

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification of goods – Revenue contended that that the appellant product (non-alcoholic beverage bases or concentrates )are classifiable under SH 10 of Chapter Heading 33.02 as has been claimed by respondent but rejected by the tribunal

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 14 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Warehousing – Alleged that re-warehoused certificate, duly signed by the Consignee’s range supdtt. has not been received by the appellant range supdtt. within 90 days and accordingly liable to pay duty – Authority after considering detail allow the appeal with consequential relief

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 12 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Refund – Appellant claim for refund of excess duty paid to revenue is rejected in a decision of lower authority – Concerned authority after undertaking all the details decided that appellant is liable for refund

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Evidence – As per stated that the photocopy of original can’t be adduced as a secondary evidence – Authority stated that only when conditions of section prescribed in section 65 are satisfied, documents can be admitted as secondary evidence.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification – Department contended that appellant product (Vim dish wash bar) is classifiable under CSH 3401.20 and attract duty of 30% but as per assessee classifiable under 3405.40 – Authority decided that the said product classifiable under CSH 3405.40.

  ---

1 ....8910111213