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 181 to 200 of 222 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 108 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  The appellants commissioner decision once accepted by the committee can't be disputed by the Commissioner hence appealed impugned order is not acceptable

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 89 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Classification - Department contended that appellant product i.e. Vicco Vajradanti powder and paste, Vicco turmeric cream classifiable under Chapter 33 of CET not under Chapter 30.03 ibid - Held that appellant product classifiable under Chapter 30.03 of CET as Ayurvedic product

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 86 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Manufacture - Department contended that appellant liable to pay duty on the clearance of manufactured scrape but appellant contended that they are basically manufacturer of pharmaceutical product and sold of scrape not attract excise duty - Allowed appellant appeal

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 85 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  EOU - Department contended that appellant is not entitle for remission of duty on the ground that loss having occurred after removal from the factory - After considering the fact matter remanded to AO for reconsideration

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 84 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty - Department contended that respondent is liable for personnel penalty on the ground that appellant is a director of the company and involved in the clandestine removal - Held that department contention was correct and matter remanded for reconsideration

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 83 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty - revenue contended that appellant is liable for personnel penalty on the ground that appellant is the chairman of the company and engaged in clandestine removal - Held that revenue contention was not valid and set aside personnel penalty

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 80 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty - Revenue contended that appellant is liable to pay penalty u/s 11AC instead of under Rule 27 of the CER,2002 on the ground that appellant has not pay the duty for the impugned period - Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 78 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat - Department contended that appellant is not entitle for input credit which were lying in the stock on the ground that the appellant not fulfill the procedure prescribed under Rule 9A - Matter remanded to original authority for de novo adjudication

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 77 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Department contended that appellant is not eligible for credit on the ground that the final product(bright bars) was not excisable - Held that department contention was not sustainable and allowed credit to the appellant

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 76 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) - Revenue contended that assessee and buyer is the related person and the price at which the buyer sold is consider for valuation purpose - Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 75 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Department contended that there is alleged relationship between Appellant-1(M/s GDOL) and Appellant-2(M/s REPL) and their activity influenced by it - Held that department contention was not sustained and set aside the demand

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 74 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Revenue contended that in respect of freight incurred in the return transportation of empty cylinders and collected from the buyer through debit not includible in the assessable value of goods - Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 71 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand - Question arises whether excisable by-product liable to be treated as a final product for the purposes of Rule 57CC of CER, 1944- Matter referred to Larger bench to decide afresh

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 70 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Appellant contended that maximum liability to pay penalty can't exceed more than 25% of the duty when the amount deposited earlier than the issuance of SCN - Held that appellant contention was correct and reduced the penalty subsequently

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 69 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) – Appellants demand for refund claim on the amount of duty paid on quantitative discount - Held that appellants demand were not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 68 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Alleged that appellants were carrying out a circular transaction for the purpose of evasion of excise duty and accordingly demand the duty short levied as well as impose penalties on them – Held that allegation was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 67 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that appellant is not entitle for credit on 'Pollution Control Equipment' and 'Storage tank' on the ground that it is not categorized under capital goods - Held that revenue contention was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 66 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that appellant cleared the discarded capital goods "as such" on which the appellant availed Cenvat credit without payment of duty - Held that no duty liability can imposed on appellant as per Rule 3(5)(a)

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 65 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Cenvat - Issue arises (i) credit taken after 6 month from dates of related invoices (ii) time/date of removal not mention in invoices (iii) inputs received from assessee's sister plant and no debit entry particulars recorded in invoice (iv) BOE particulars not available in invoices - Credit allowed in 3rd and 4th and denied in 1st and 2nd

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 64 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Demand and penalty – Department contended that appellant liable to pay duty along with penalty on the ground that goods cleared by appellant is of different grade from the rejected goods – Held that department contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

1 ....6789101112