Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2012 2012 2012 (8) Central Excise - 2012 (8) 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 161 to 180 of 189 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 208 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reversal of Cenvt Credit - Rule 6(3) - generation of waste - fine was resulted while manufacture of Sponge Iron – Held that:- There is nothing on record to suggest that outcome of manufacture is controllable to eliminate fine which obviously generate - Revenue not brought out that the appellant knowingly generated fine and also knowingly arranged its situation to attract Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Proportionality aspect not being dealt by Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and that Rule being subject to certain conditions the appellant shall succeed in absence of a case made from that angle - appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 173 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Pre-deposit of duties and penalties - whether the appellants are entitled to Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on rent a cab service, used for carrying employees from their homes to the factory and dropping them back from the factory to their homes – Held that:- Services of transportation of employees to the factory is an admissible cenvatable /modvatable input services – In favor of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 172 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Clandestine removal of the goods - appellant firm who had removed the goods clandestinely, discharged the duty liability, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty involved – Held that:- Requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the appeal taken up for final disposal. Section 11A (1A) of Central Excise Act, 1944, if such person (the person liable to pay duty) has paid duty in full together with interest and penalty under sub-section (1A), the proceedings in respect of such person and the other persons to whom the notices are served under sub-section 1 shall without prejudice the provisions of Sections 9, 9A and 9AA be deemed to be conclusive as to the matters stated therein - Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 171 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Non Compliance - the assesses, who had availed Modvat credit on the basis of modvatble invoices were directed to reverse the entire Modvat credit, the other appellants, who were registered dealers and had issued the invoices, were directed to deposit 50% of the penalty amounts imposed upon them. - appeals are liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 170 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - manufacture of MS ingots – alleged that applicants suppressed production of excisable goods and short paid the duty - demand is confirmed on the basis of electric consumption as well as after taking into consideration the data in respect of cost of production and sale considerations – Held that:- Per MT cost of production of finished goods was worked out on their reported turnover as per the audited financial account for the year 2007-08 the cost of production per MT for the period March 2008 to August 2008 is Rs.33,476/- whereas the transaction value per MT as per ER-1 returns is only Rs.31,690/- which is much less than even the cost of production - demand is not merely on the basis of electric consumption - Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeals on merits - appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act as the appellants failed to comply with the conditions of the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh - appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 140 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund - manufacture of P.C. poles – Held that:- Assessments were not provisional and the respondents cleared the PC poles on payment of appropriate duty. Subsequent to the clearances, Maharashtra State Electricity Board reduced the price as per the terms of the contract – refund is not allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 139 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat credit - electricity used outside the factory of production as well as in respect of peripheral area in the factory - demand on the ground that the appellant is liable to pay 10% on the price of electricity which is used outside the factory - Held that:- Electricity is not an excisable item as per Section 3 of CEA, 1944 and the manufacturer is liable to reverse the credit on duty availed as inputs used in the generation of electricity which is not used in the factory of the production- appellant has failed to show that the same is used within the factory, therefore this issue also requires reconsideration as in the show-cause notice the allegation is that the electricity is used in the peripheral area within factory gate - matter is remanded to the Commissioner

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 138 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Wrong utilization of CENVAT Credit - claim of exemption Notification No.64/1995-C.E. dated 16.03.1995 - Held that:- Looking into the ER1 returns filled by assessee no clear picture can be made out whether credit of tax availed is correct or not and whether it is in respect of a dutiable product or exempted product - thus it cannot be claimed that the assessee has disclosed the correct facts to the department - assessee has failed to make out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit - direction to pre-deposit 50% of the duty demanded.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 137 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal dismissed on technical ground of non-compliance of the direction to make pre-deposit by the stipulated date - assessee contested that he did not comply with the order of pre-deposit because he was pursuing his writ petition filed against the order and subsequently withdrew the appeal and deposited the pre - deposit amount as directed along with balance demand - Held that:- The default on the part of the appellant was unintentional and it occurred only because the appellant had challenged the order of pre-deposit in High Court which he withdrew - since the entire amount of duty has been deposited, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is remanded back for hearing afresh for deciding on merits - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 109 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Maintainability of appeal – Held that:- As per the provisions of Section 35E (2) of the Central Excise Act, the appeal against the adjudication order is to be filed by the same authority who passed the impugned adjudication order - in the present case the adjudication order is passed by the Joint Commissioner whereas the appeal is filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Penalties under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – appellant issued statutory invoices to another party without supply of goods with a view to enabling that party to avail CENVAT credit of the duty covered by the invoices - manufacturer sold the goods to one party and issued the invoice to another – Held that:- Conduct of the appellant attracted Rule 25 - quantum of penalty reduced

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 107 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  CENVAT credit on outdoor catering service used for serving food to their employees - respondent submits that the show-cause notice in this case did not raise any such ground for denial of CENVAT credit – Held that:- Objection raised by the learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) cannot be sustained as it is beyond the scope of the show-cause notice - Revenue's appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 106 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit on capital goods – credit was availed in 1st year - when in subsequent year the rest part of the capital goods cenvat credit was claimed and the final product was being exempted from duty - Revenue disallowed such claim – Held that:- Earning of duty by the assessee is not in dispute - Credit earned not being found to be illegitimate - right accrued is not deniable unless law abrogates such right, the appellant is entitled to the claim of part of cenvat credit on capital goods - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 78 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund - import of Industrial Nylon Yarn - Revenue denied the benefit of Notification and respondent paid the higher rate of customs duty under protest - Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the benefit of Notification - respondent filed refund claim – Held that:- Refund claim was filed as consequential relief in pursuance of the order passed by the Tribunal and the differential duty was paid under protest - no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the refund is sanctioned - appellant failed to show that the burden of duty has not been passed on, the Commissioner (Appeals) ordered the amount of refund to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund - no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same is dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 77 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Assessable value – transportation charges – Held that:- As per Rule 5 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000, the transportation charges shown separately in the invoice or charge separately are not includable in the assessable value - while calculating the expenses incurred by the appellant on transportation charges, the maintenance of vehicles was also not considered

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 76 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Duty demand - on the basis of annual production capacity under Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1998 – Held that:- Their annual production capacity was first assessed provisionally, which was finalized by order dated 01/07/99 under Section 3A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Against that they have made a representation to the Commissioner of Central Excise for re-determination of their annual production capacity, as the annual capacity of production was fixed is not proper as there were one Stenter was permanently closed under Section 3A (3) of the Central Excise Act - no re-determination of annual capacity of production was done, therefore, impugned orders are not sustainable - Annual capacity of production has not been determined, following the provisions of Section 3A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1994 - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to re-determine the annual capacity of production

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 75 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Condonation of delay in filing appeal – appellant submitted that Advocate was suffering from cough and cold and got serious fever, for which he was under bed rest. Therefore, they could not file the appeal in time and there was a delay of 29 days in filing the appeal – Held that:- Applicant could not tell the date when their Advocate fell sick, nor any documentary evidence has been produced in support of their contention - Applicant could not show any sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal - application for condonation of delay is dismissed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Direction to 15% of the duty demanded is unreasonable - Held that:- The petitioner has in no way claimed that the direction to pay 15% of the duty demanded which works out to Rs.one crore is unreasonable that results in substantial hardship so as to cause prejudice its right to be heard - no ground to interfere.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 52 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Unconditional waiver of pre-deposit of interest and penalty - Held that:- As the appellant submits that the appellant was in bona fide belief that they have paid the entire amount of Service Tax on the basis of certificate issued by Chartered Accountant has admitted that the appellant has paid only a sum of Rs.6,24,21,219/- out of Rs.18,08,18,228 - direction to make a pre-deposit of balance amount of along with 25% of penalty within a period of eight weeks.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 51 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit - Job worker of the appellant manufactured certain moulds for the former the ultimate use thereof in manufacture of intermediate goods for the appellant – alleged that mould was not received in the premises of the appellant there was no mould further send by the appellant to the job worker – Held that:- Tools retained by it are property of the appellant and used to make components for the appellant - It was to reduce the exercise of movement of goods and no malafide was attributed or attached to the conduct of the appellant - cenvat credit does not appear to have been claimed malafide - appeal is allowed.

  ---

1 ....5678910