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 201 to 220 of 222 Records

• 2007 (7) TMI 62 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Classification - Department contended that hand made biris were classifiable under Residuary CSH 2404.39 of CETA,1985 as others but as per appellant it fall under CSH 2404.31 - Held that biris were classifiable under CSH 2404.31ibid

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 61 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Department contended that the priced charged by the appellant from his buyer is influenced by the relationship and accordingly demand were made along with interest and penalty – Held that department contention was not sustained and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 60 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty – Revenue contended that respondent is clandestine remover of goods and accordingly fine and penalty imposed - Revenue is unable to prove that respondent is clandestine remover and accordingly fine and penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 59 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Clandestine Removal – Alleged that appellant is the clandestine removal of goods on the basis of information provided by the informer – Held that allegation was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 58 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Dutiability – Revenue contended that the sample drawn for testing by the appellants are liable to pay duty – Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside the demand

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 57 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Valuation (Central excise ) – Revenue contended that the extra consideration received by the appellant inform of freight, insurance charges and other expenses related to sale shall be includible in the assessable value of the goods – Held that revenue contention was correct and demand and penalty sustained

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 56 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand, fine and penalty – Alleged that appellant is clandestine manufacture and remover of goods and demand were made along with fine and penalty – Held that allegation was not correct and demand, fine and penalty was set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 55 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund – Department contended that respondent is not entitle for refund of the excise duty on the ground that the Notification No. 74/93-C.E. not applicable – Held that Department contention was not correct and allowed the refund claim to the respondent

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 54 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Different issue arises such as (i) Demand of interest on escalation amounts (ii) variation in credit - After considering all the details matter allowed in favour of appellant

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that appellant is not entitle for transfer of unutilised Cenvat credit to other unit on the ground that there is not accompanied by physical transfer of inputs as such or in process - Held that revenue contention was not correct and allowed transfer

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 51 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Alleged that appellant is not entitle for credit in respect of the goods which is used for repair purpose on the ground that they are not concerned with the manufacturing activity - Held that allegation was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 28 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation (Central excise) - Revenue is of the view that appellant is not entitle for 12% retail margin on the assessable value on the ground that their was no retail sale made by the appellant - Held that revenue contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 27 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Department contended that availing of concession simultaneously by the raw material supplier for the raw material and by the appellants for the finished goods using such raw materials is not allowable - Held that department contention was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 26 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Department contended that no credit of duty paid on the capital goods used for the manufacture of 'wiring harness' was admissible to the job worker (appellant) and accordingly demand were made - Held that department contention was not valid and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 24 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation (Central excise) - department contended that assessee had discharged the duty only on MRL and had evaded duty on LVD on combipack and accordingly demand were made - Held that MRP printed on the combipack should considered and accordingly demand were set aside

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 23 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Valuation(Central excise) -Appellant contended that assessable value of goods determined on the basis of MRP minus permitted deduction and accordingly pay the duty and demand of duty on alleged extra collection as additional insurance charges not correct - Held that appellant contention was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 22 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY
  

  Penalty - Appellant had made payment of duty before issuance of SCN and question arises weather penalty imposable u/s 11AC or Rule 25 - Held that penalty imposable under Rule 25 on the ground that there was willful suppression

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 14 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Classification – Department contended that appellant good(cotton core yarn) are classifiable under CSH 5205.11 and liable to pay duty as per appellant classifiable under CSH 5205.19 attracting nil rate of duty – Held that department contention was right

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 13 - CESTAT,MUMBAI-II
  

  Classification – Appellant contended that they have entitle for the benefit of Notification 155/86-C.E. on laboratory equipment (cooling) and laboratory centrifuges(cooling) – Held that appellant contention is correct and allowed the appeal

  ---

• 2007 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification - Revenue contended that the machinery and parts manufactured by assessee fall under Chapter 84 of CETA,985 – CESTAT supported the revenue contention

  ---

1 ....789101112