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 161 to 180 of 246 Records

• 2007 (4) TMI 244 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Department seeks stay of order where refund of the pre-deposit was sanctioned - there is no provision under CEA for granting stay of the implementation of an order which is not executable against the party in appeal - By impugned order, dept. is under no obligation to make any pre-deposit – if the said order is stayed, the respondent’s interests are affected - therefore, the merits of the appeal can be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal itself - hence application is rejected

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 242 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Settlement commission has held the petitioners liable to pay interest to the extent of 10% per annum having regard to the manner of evasion of excise duty - circumstances in which these cases have been decided show inexplicable non-application of mind - impugned orders are set aside, to the extent it does not grant immunity from payment of excise duty u/s 11A - matters are remanded back to the Commission for reconsidering the question of immunity from interest u/s 11AB

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 187 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Ethyl Alcohol was partly used in the mfg. of denatured Ethyl Alcohol & partly in the mfg. of Indian Made Foreign Liquor - assessee reversed credit to the extent of an amount equivalent to 8% of total price of the ethyl alcohol (non-excisable and used as input for production of IMFL) in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) – revenue plea that Rule 6(3) is not applicable, unless the excisable product & non-excisable product are produced by the common process, is non-acceptable – no question of law arise

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 184 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Biased approach by revenue - matter clearly shows “reasonable likelihood of bias” - prosecutor himself should not be a judge - judge should be a neutral & disinterested person - actual existence of bias is not necessary - filing four affidavits strongly opposing grant of rebate claims & his insistence to hear the above matter, clearly establishes the “real likelihood of bias” – OIO dated 3rd April,2007 rejecting the rebate claim is actuated with malice and the same cannot be sustained in law

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 183 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  There is no time gap between the date on which differential (revised) rates applicable with retrospective effect were learnt & the date on which the differential duty was paid by assessee – hence, levy of interest u/s 11AB for delayed payment of duty is not applicable

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 174 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY
  

  Whether the particular goods were branded goods or not is an issue to be determined on the basis of embossing on the goods so it is only a Question of fact – Goods cannot be said to be mis-declared as branded goods, to avail SSI exemption, if returned filed had already been approved by Dept.

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 169 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Certificate issued by Collector has been duly examined by the Comm.(A) – Collector has issued certificate on good faith, complying with the requirement of the law and at public interest – Respondent should not be deprived of justice, that was rendered by the Comm.(A) – Revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 168 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY
  

  Delay in filing petition – Recovery of requisite cess – No whisper in the petitions justifying or giving any explanation about delay – Court cannot give aid under Article 226 of the Constitution hence refused to exercise discretionary jurisdiction

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 164 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat – Drawing of wire at suppliers end does not amount to manufacture – Retrospective amendment in Rule 16, clearly covers the period under dispute – In view of this amendment, credit is entitled on wire

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 163 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Order passed beyond the scope of SCN is not applicable – Hence classifying ‘Box strappings’ under Heading 7211.31 and demand are not sustainable – Period of limitation will be computed as per the date of corrigendum in SCN

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 162 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Remission – Loss of molasses intimated to officers – Appellant started storing molasses of its sister unit without giving any time to officers to verify the reported loss – Remission of duty rejected but no ground to impose penalty and interest

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 160 - HIGH COURT, UTTARAKHAND
  

  Question of Law – “Inputs used in relation to manufacture of the final product are the only goods which are the raw material and some percentage of the same contribute to some extent in final product” – Above question referred as a substantial question of law is already decided by Tribunal

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 159 - HIGH COURT, BOMBAY
  

  Question arises whether in terms of Para 7 of Notification NO. 31/2000-C.E. (N.T.) dated 31-03-2000 the Joint Commissioner of Central excise is competent authority for abatement under Rule 96ZQ of CER,1944 – Held answer in favour of appellant

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 154 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Appeal by Deputy Commissioner – No authorization from the Committee of Commissioners – Further, there is no opinion rendered by Committee that impugned order in appeal is not legal or correct – Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 152 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Appeal to Appellate tribunal - Appellant contended that whether there is eight month delay but he received the order copy just one week before filing this appeal - Delay satisfactorily explained, so condoned by tribunal

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Rectification of mistake - Applicant has filed the ROM against the decision of tribunal in view of decision of the higher court and question arises whether higher court decision binding on the tribunal - Held yes

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 143 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that respondent is not entitle for credit on the ground that they avail credit on the basis of fake invoices received by the input supplier - Revenue contention was not supported by any evidence and accordingly set aside

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Appeal by Department - Respondent contended that appeal filed by the department non-maintainable on the ground of the authorization not valid as per Section 35B (2) and penalty imposition without the prayer in first litigation is not valid - Allowed respondent contention

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 135 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Revenue contended that appellant instead of availing admissible exemption on the intermediate product utilised for manufacture of final product, paid duty on the same and availed credit of such - Held that revenue contention was not sustained and credit allowed

  ---

• 2007 (4) TMI 130 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Demand and penalty - Revenue contended that when the rate of duty was in question, learned Commissioner (A) should not have taken lenient view but as per Commissioner (A) it is just procedural lapse and accordingly allowed due relief to the respondent

  ---

1 ....5678910111213