Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 2007 (7) Central Excise - 2007 (7) 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 121 to 140 of 222 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, inserted by the Finance Act, 1996, with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evade payment of tax, should be read to contain mens rea as an essential requirement?

  Held that:- As in the present cases, the assessee had challenged the vires of rule 96ZQ(5). By the impugned judgment, the Gujarat High Court has read down the said rule incorporating the mens rea requirement. It is made clear that if the larger Bench takes a view to say that the penalty under the said clause is mandatory, then it would still be open to the assessee to challenge the vires of the said rule 96ZQ(5) and, therefore, in that event, the matter has to be kept before the Division Bench for passing appropriate orders. Direct the Registry to place our order in this batch of civil appeals before the hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Penalty - Mandatory penalty - whether the said proceeding was maintainable in view of the fact that whereas the period of alleged contravention is said to be from 5-9-1995 to 7-9-1995, the provision of Section 11AC which was inserted in the Act by Act 33 of 1996 only with effect from 28-9-1996 and as such could not have been invoked - Held that:- Section 11AC being a penal provision providing for a mandatory penalty, in our opinion, cannot be invoked in a case of this nature as the same would amount to give retrospective operation thereto which is impermissible in law - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. ELGI Equipments Ltd. [2001 (1) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 299 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Demand and Recovery – Classification and Period of Limitation - Fixed Dose Combination (FDC) of vitamin B1 B6 and Vitamin B12. According to the assessee the said product was medicament and therefore it fell under Chapter Heading 3003.10 whereas according to the Department the said product fell under Heading No. 2936.00 – Apex Court has kept the issue of classification open – The claim of the assessee-respondent herein that the above Combination was a medicament was in consonance with the directions given by the Drug Controller. In the circumstances Section11-A cannot be invoked. In the above circumstances it cannot be said that there was a wilful mis-declaration on the part of the respondent-assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 274 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Fact that assessee have taken re-credit of the entire amount in CENVAT account, was not brought to tribunal’s notice when tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit – held that assessee cannot claim undue advantage of duel benefits viz. the benefit of waiver, and stay of recovery and the self-availed benefit of CENVAT credit

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 272 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Interest on delayed refund – relevant date - LB decision in the case of Rama Vision Ltd. is applicable herein where it was held that interest required to be paid from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of refund application till date of refund - held that respondent filed documentary evidence in respect of refund claim on 13-12-1999, they will be eligible to get interest with effect from 30-3-2000 onwards till the date of payment of refund amount

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 270 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Excess payment of duty - Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the tribunal to consider the report of the cost accountant and then to dispose off by the appeal in terms of the grounds raised in the appeal - order of Supreme Court of remanding the case to tribunal was not limited to any specific term of remand – therefore, if appellant raise content ion that there was excess payment, tribunal is bound to frame the question and answer the issue – appeal before HC is maintainable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 269 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Whether in the absence of provisional assessment, duty paid in excess can be adjusted against duty short paid, especially when the refund claim of excess duty is otherwise time barred – since no such issue was raised before the Tribunal. Therefore, adjustment as ordered by Tribunal would not give rise to any question of law – further, since revenue not raised any argument before Tribunal that credit would not be allowed selectively in respect of few consignments only, no question of law arise

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 265 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Demanded on the ground that the RG-1 stocks were different from those mentioned in the balance sheet and equal penalty was imposed - appellant submitted that they had included certain goods, which were returned from the customer and which were kept at some other premises belonging to them - allegation of clandestine removal is a serious charge and requires corroboration and cannot be sustained merely based on variation between RG-1 and balance sheet stock – demand and penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD
  

  Gutka case – concealment of filing of appeal with tribunal - maintainability of this writ petition – petitioner not informed the HC that he has already availed statutory alternative remedy by filing the appeal to tribunal – hence challenge to decision of commissioner of imposing duty and penalty of 320 crore in this petition is not permissible – plea of petitioner that he filed petition for speedy disposal, is not acceptable – petition not entertainable mere because of heavy duty involved

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 219 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Quantities mentioned in the private records were found higher than those mentioned in invoices – in respect of other items of fireworks, either no quantity was mentioned in private records or a lesser quantity was mentioned therein as compared to invoices - held that the entire quantity of fireworks mentioned in the private records was liable to be added to the total quantity in the invoices to arrive at the aggregate value of clearances for the purpose of the relevant SSI Notification 1/93

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 218 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Adjudication authority travelled beyond directions of remand order for quantification of duty & further re-adjudicated the matter, which had already reached finality – re-adjudication can’t be said proper – Compounded levy scheme – not proved that appellant manufactured bars & rods other than bars & rods of alloy steel - hold that the provisions of Rule 96ZO (3) would be applicable and no duty-liability can be fastened in respect of the Furnace, in which non-notified goods are manufactured

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 217 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable on pre-deposit, but applicable only on duty – since amount was deposited during pendency of appeal so it can not be treated as duty but only as pre-deposit – hence refund of pre-deposit can not be held time barred

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 215 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD
  

  Assessee’s case is that in spite of repeated requests, the documents which were not relied upon, were not returned to them - Some of the non-relied documents appear to have been given subsequent to the orders passed by the respondent no. 2 (commissioner) – Commissioner is directed to make available the copies of the data recovered from the assessee’s seized computers, which have become the basis of the conclusion of undervaluation – assessee’s petition allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 214 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether an appeal is valid or competent is a question entirely for the appellate court before whom the appeal is filed to decide and this determination is possible only after the appeal is heard but there is nothing to prevent a party from filing an appeal which may ultimately be found to be incompetent e.g., when it is held to be barred by limitation. From the mere fact that such an appeal is held to be unmaintainable on any pound whatsoever, it does not follow that there was no appeal pending before the court.

  In the instant case the appeal is to be treated as pending. The High Court was not justified in dismissing the writ petition. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. Orders of the designated authority rejecting the declaration filed by the appellant are quashed. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 199 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Assessee cleared the liquid Sulphur dioxide in cylinders supplied by buyers, on payment of duty on the basis of transaction value - department wanted the amortized value of cylinders to be included in the assessable value - buyers were not alleged to be related to the assessee & price charged by the latter was not alleged to be affected by any extra commercial consideration - so value of the cylinders owned by the buyers was not includible in the assessable value of liquid Sulphur dioxide

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 186 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Whether there is any discretion u/s 11AC for imposing penalty less than an amount equivalent to evaded excise duty - held that there is no discretion with the authority to impose penalty less than 100 per cent (or 25 per cent in case the determined penalty is paid within thirty days), as under Section 11AC - Therefore, payment of short duty/unpaid before issuance of show cause notice does not exempt an assessee from payment of penalty under Section 11AC – revenue’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 184 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Penalty imposed by the Comm(A) could not have been set aside by the CESTAT on the sole ground that the duty was paid before issuance of SCN – however in OIO there was no finding of suppression of material facts or mis-statement, etc., which would have attracted Section 11AC - In view of absence of requirements to attract Section 11AC, the order setting aside the penalty u/s 11-AC that was imposed by the Comm (A) does not call for interference – revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 183 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Whether imposition of penalty is necessary even if evaded excise duty is paid by the assessee, before service of SCN - Assessing Officer, while confirming the notice, has recorded a finding that there was no suppression of facts - no penalty u/s 11AC is imposable in view of payment of duty before issuance of show cause notice and more so when finding recorded is against existence of any circumstances attracting Section 11AC – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 175 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Charges towards transport and outside handling required for the consignment of glass bottles are separately mentioned in the invoices, not to be included in the assessable value - charges made on the customer for delayed payment of duty cannot also form part of the assessable value – but charges for secondary packing, are includible as appellant is not pressing the appeal in respect of such charges – heavy penalty not imposable for such matter

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 174 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand raised on account of non-mention of brand name of yarn in declaration filed u/r 173-B – assessment under a particular notification also mentioned in declaration - also filed monthly RT-12 returns - if the authorities needed separate RT-12 return in regard to each variety/brand, they could have sought that information as well, rather than raising delayed demands, alleging suppression of facts against the appellant – demand & penalty set aside

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 12