Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 141 to 160 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (12) TMI 44
  

  Held that interest on delayed refund is to be paid after the expiry of three months from the final disposal of the dispute between the parties and does not relate to refund of excess duty paid - appellants are entitled to interest at the appropriate rate - set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 42
  

  MEDIMIX brand toilet soap - classifiable under heading 3401.12 as claimed by the assessee as no power or steam was used in, or in relation to, its manufacture or under sub-heading 3401.19 as claimed by the Revenue – electricity has been used for transportation of raw material to the tanks not in conversion of raw material to soap – so appellant stands is absolutely right – impugned goods classifiable under heading 3401.12

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 39
  

  Exemption sought on Lidocaine Tropical Aerosol USP bearing different brand names like ‘Climax, Numit Spray and Stud’ claiming the goods as anesthetics – only active ingredient of the product is Lidocaine which is an anesthetic - as per encyclopedia Lidocaine is anesthetic used to relieve itching, burning and pain from skin inflammation – exemption available – it is not relevant that impugned item ia also used as sexual stimulants.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 36
  

  Job-work – SSI exemption - exemption limit – appellant is receiving raw materials i.e. lay-flat tubing and carrying out only the activity of printing - held that mere printing doesn’t amount to manufacture so charges collected for mere printing should not be included in the total turnover - benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/92 for the year 92-93, 93-94, & 94-95 – Matter remanded to comm..(A) for denovo proceedings as benefit hasn’t been allowed for the year 95-96 to 96-97

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 35
  

  On the waste and scrap generated in between, which are entirety used within the factory for recycling, the appellants have claimed exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E - contention of the Revenue that this Notification is not applicable as appellants manufactured some dutiable wagons – held that exemption is available - moreover appellants have proportionately paid the duty on portion of waste and scrap, which are used in respect of dutiable wagons

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 32
  

  Appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to non-imposition of penalty on General Manager – appeal by revenue had to be considered independently irrespective of whether the appeal of Mahindra and Mahindra was allowed or rejected as no penalty had been imposed on him even if some of the contentions may be common - matter is remanded back to the tribunal for re-hearing the appeal and to dispose it off according to law on its own merits

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 28
  

  Reference petition – tribunal was justified in allowing credit when C.A.’s certificate prove that requirement of Rule 57A has been satisfied i.e. value of secondary packing are included in A.V. of aerated water – no question of law arise – HC can not reappreciate evidence

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 19
  

  Decision of SC that beneficial circular will operate with retrospective effect is applicable to this case – Hence in view of circular dated 1.7.02, for the period prior to 1.7.02 the assessable value of physicians samples will be arrived on basis of 115% of cost of production

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 18
  

  Use of brand name of others by SSI unit – Non-disclosure of agreement of assessee & brand owner in reply to SCN & classification list – Ignorance about exemption under notification is not related to non-disclosure – No counter has been filed till today to order of SC – Larger period invocable.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 15
  

  Annual capacity of production – Omission of Sec. 3A – Held that right to refund would not extinguish nor the pending proceedings would lapse with the repeal of Sec. 3A of the Act – Tribunal ought to have considered the plea that incidence of duty has not been passed before deciding the matter

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 11
  

  Application for condonation of delay rejected by Comm.(A), Tribunal as well as HC – No sufficient cause shown for delay of 20 months in filing appeal – Plea that , because of lack of experience in business there was delay, is not a adequate reason – So, appeal deserves to be dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 10
  

  Loading charges at time of clearance – Assessable value – Price should be treaded as cum-duty price for assessment – Revenue’s plea that loading charges were part of cost of production is not sustainable – Held that assessee is entitled to benefit of abatement

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 9
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in relation to prosecution of service providers.
  2. Allegations against the appellant regarding involvement in dealing with banned psychotropic substances.
  3. Application of Sections 24 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 to the appellant's case.
  4. Examination of the appellant's companies' role as network service providers and their immunity from prosecution under Section 79 of the Technology Act.
  5. Determination of bail eligibility based on evidence and allegations against the appellant.
  
  Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
  The contention was raised that service providers like the appellant's companies were protected from prosecution under Section 79 of the Technology Act. However, it was argued that this provision does not grant immunity from prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
  
  Issue 2: Allegations against the Appellant
  The appellant was accused of arranging the supply of banned psychotropic substances online through his companies. The defense argued that the substances in question were not listed in Schedule-I of the Act and had low potential for misuse, thus falling outside the scope of Section 24.
  
  Issue 3: Application of Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act
  The appellant was charged under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act, which deal with external dealings in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy, respectively. The prosecution argued that the appellant facilitated transactions involving psychotropic substances, making him liable under these sections.
  
  Issue 4: Role of the Appellant's Companies as Network Service Providers
  Investigation revealed that the appellant's companies were not innocent intermediaries but were running internet pharmacies dealing with prescription drugs. This finding negated their claim of being mere network service providers, thereby denying them immunity under Section 79 of the Technology Act.
  
  Issue 5: Bail Eligibility
  Based on the evidence and nature of the allegations against the appellant, the court found no merit in granting bail. The overwhelming inculpatory evidence indicated the appellant's involvement in activities violating the NDPS Act, making it difficult to establish reasonable grounds for bail.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the observations made were specific to the bail matter and would not influence the trial proceedings or decision. The judgment highlighted the appellant's active involvement in illegal activities, refuting claims of innocence and immunity under the Technology Act.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 8
  
  Issues involved: Determination of whether the appellant was manufacturing split air-conditioners classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act.
  
  Comprehensive Analysis:
  
  1. Manufacturing of Split Air-Conditioners: The appellant, in this case, was alleged to have clandestinely removed split air-conditioners without paying central excise duty. The investigation revealed that the appellant's Mumbai Branch received condensing units from their manufacturing unit in New Delhi and procured cooling units locally to assemble complete split air-conditioners. The process involved conducting quality checks, affixing the brand name, and delivering the units to customers in Gujarat and Goa. The statements of various individuals confirmed the manufacturing process at the Mumbai workshop-godown, where the final product came into existence.
  
  2. Definition of "Manufacture": Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act defines "manufacture" inclusively, encompassing processes incidental to completing a manufactured product. The Tribunal relied on this definition to determine whether the appellant's activities constituted manufacturing. The appellant's argument that no substantial change occurred in the product's name, character, or use was dismissed, emphasizing that the assembly of condensing and cooling units into a complete air conditioner constituted manufacturing, creating a commercially new article.
  
  3. Application of Rule of Interpretation: The Tribunal referenced Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation, which the appellant contested as inapplicable. However, the Supreme Court found that the matter could be decided without invoking this rule. The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower authorities based on the depositions of the appellant's employees and suppliers, concluding that the appellant was indeed manufacturing split air-conditioners as alleged in the show cause notice.
  
  4. Final Decision: After a detailed analysis of the manufacturing process, the Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the findings that the appellant was manufacturing split air-conditioners. The judgment highlighted the assembly process, the creation of a new product, and the evidentiary support from statements and invoices. The decision was made without awarding costs to either party, affirming the lower authorities' conclusions on the matter.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment affirmed that the appellant's activities constituted manufacturing of split air-conditioners, emphasizing the assembly process and the creation of a new commercial product. The legal analysis delved into the definition of "manufacture," the application of relevant rules, and the evidentiary support for the manufacturing process.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 709
  
  Issues involved: Remand of matter back to Tribunal for fresh decision.
  
  Summary:
  The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Mr. Ashok Bhan and Mr. D.K. Jain, JJ., condoned the delay and issued notice limited to the question of remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Department was not given an opportunity to prove that the product in question was being 'manufactured' as per the Central Excise Act. The respondents contended that the issue was covered by a previous judgment but the Court, noting a distinction, decided in the interest of justice to remit the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The impugned order was set aside, all contentions were left open, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs. The Court clarified that the order should not be construed as an expression of opinion.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 690
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in this case include diversion of furnace oil, duty demands on imported furnace oil, duty demand on short receipt of furnace oil, demand on clandestinely removed yarn, duty demand on clearance of waste, confiscation of furnace oil, imposition of penalties, and personal penalties on individuals.
  
  Duty demands on imported furnace oil:
  The appellants procured fuel for electricity generation under EOU scheme. The demands were made for duty evasion on furnace oil allegedly diverted to another EOU unit. The Tribunal found no intention to evade duty as the oil was used within the EOU framework. The demands were set aside due to procedural errors and lack of malafide intent.
  
  Duty demand on short receipt of furnace oil:
  A demand was made based on short receipt of furnace oil, but it was found to be based on presumption and not corroborated by evidence. The demands were not upheld as there was no concrete proof of short deliveries.
  
  Confiscation of furnace oil:
  Confiscation of furnace oil was ordered by the Commissioner, but the Tribunal found no evasion of duty on the transferred oil. As the oil was not available for confiscation, the redemption fine was set aside.
  
  Demand on clandestinely removed yarn:
  Demands were raised on clandestinely removed yarn, but the Tribunal directed a reworking of the duty applicable based on previous Tribunal decisions regarding duty payments by EOUs.
  
  Duty demand on clearance of waste:
  The demand on clearance of waste was challenged as documents were not furnished to determine the classification of waste. The Commissioner was directed to re-determine the duty demand after providing necessary documents and hearing the appellants.
  
  Imposition of penalties:
  Penalties were imposed on the appellants and individuals under various rules. The determination of penalties was deferred pending quantification of demands. The appeals were partially allowed and partially remanded for further proceedings.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 687
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, condoning the delay and stating that the Trial Court's findings were factual and did not require interference.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 658
  
  Issues involved: Determination of duty liability u/s Notification No. 64/95-C.E., availability of exemption, applicability of limitation period, imposition of penalties.
  
  Summary:
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD disposed of a group of cases involving manufacturers of excisable goods supplying to shipbuilders without duty payment under Notification No. 64/95-C.E. The Revenue contended that the goods were not for consumption on board a vessel, challenging the exemption claimed. The issue of exemption availability was settled against the appellants based on precedent. The demand was challenged on the ground of limitation, citing previous Tribunal decisions where demands were held time-barred. The Tribunal referred to cases where demands were considered time-barred due to bona fide belief or certificate from Naval authorities. The demands were held to be barred by limitation, and penalties were set aside. The duty liability for a specific period was quantified by adjusting the amount already paid by the appellants. Penalties imposed were also set aside due to the demands being time-barred.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 649
  
  Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on various materials including M.S. plates, S.S. plates, H.R. S.S. / B.R. S.S./C.R.S.S. Plates / Flats /Shapes, steel bars, Asbestos, and Graphite packing.
  
  Denial of Cenvat credit on M.S. plates, S.S. plates, etc.: The appellant appealed against the denial of Cenvat credit on these items used for repairing and maintenance of machinery. The learned Advocate cited precedents where similar items were held eligible for credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that these items were used as raw materials of capital goods and for repairing damaged parts of machinery. Referring to a case involving Hindustan Zinc Ltd., it was noted that M.S./S.S. Plates used in maintenance and repair of machinery for manufacturing final products are eligible for Modvat credit. The Tribunal's decision allowing credit on such items was upheld, leading to the appeal being allowed.
  
  Denial of Cenvat credit on Asbestos Graphite Packing: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied credit on these packings used to prevent leakage in pipes, alleging they function as mechanical seals. However, citing a case involving KCP Sugar and Industries Ltd., it was established that Asbestos Graphite Packing used for preventing leakage in pipes are eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the denial of credit on these items was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
  
  Separate Judgement: No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 643
  
  Issues involved: Appeal filed by Revenue against dropping of proceedings regarding demand of duty on cenvat credit availed by respondent for goods cleared to EOU without payment of duty.
  
  Summary:
  The issue in this case revolves around the demand of duty on cenvat credit availed by the respondent for goods cleared to an EOU without payment of duty. The Adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings based on various Circulars and Notifications. The Revenue appealed to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who considered the contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules and the benefit awarded under Notification No. 43/2001 CE(NT) dated 26.1.2001. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Rule 3(4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is not applicable for goods cleared for export and upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) correctly followed the law and Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case was also cited to support the findings. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
  
  In conclusion, the judgment highlights the interpretation and application of Cenvat Credit Rules in cases of goods cleared for export to EOUs without payment of duty. The decision emphasizes the importance of following relevant Circulars and Notifications in determining the duty liability in such scenarios.

  ---

1 ....456789101112........ 134