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 261 to 280 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 246
  

  Tribunal allowed credit on RFO (residual fuel oil) holding that restriction u/not. 14/97 shall not applicable to RFO – tribunal decided issue in favor of assessee relying on judgments in Camphor & Allied Products Ltd.’s case, and Surya Roshni Ltd.’s case – revenue has not given any reason why impugned two decisions were not applicable to present case - we have no option but to conclude, that these judgments do hold good – tribunal was justified - no question of law arises

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 244
  

  Whether credit of duty is admissible to the inputs in the present case in terms of erstwhile Rule 57C and 57CC of Central Excise Rules, 1944, used in both dutiable as well as exempted goods when no separate account has been maintained nor 8% duty reversed – on basis of interpretation of Rule 57C and 57CC CEA in case of M/s Super Auto (I) Ltd., Faridabad, the question of law is decided against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 237
  

  Refund rejected on ground of limitation - petitioner paid the duty for the disputed period only under protest, as such the period of limitation prescribed would not apply as per the second proviso to Section 11B - petitioner has informed Asst. Comm. the details of cost of production of LAB, & informed that the incidence of duty has not been passed - hence contention of revenue that aspect of unjust enrichment has not been considered by single judge is not acceptable – refund allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 232
  

  On basis of various tests of classification, transmission line can’t be considered as electrical “apparatus” - appellants plea for classification of conductors as parts of electrical apparatus doesn’t succeed - transmission line & electrical machinery/apparatus are different as transmission lines carry electricity from one point to another, whereas electrical machinery/apparatus use electrical energy for performing specific functions –hence for electric goods CH 85.44 is appropriate than 85.48

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 231
  

  Demand confirmed on account of clandestine removal as assessee show less production of the finished products indicating excess consumption of furnace oil per MT of the finished products - no finding with regard to the consumption of electricity – allegation of clandestine removal on above basis(theoretical formula) is set aside in absence of any corroborative evidence - order travels far beyond the scope of SCN – duty confirmed only on quantity of billets found short – penalty reduced

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 230
  

  As per rule 12B & cir. 759/75/03, any person can purchase raw materials & get textile goods manufactured from a job worker & in such case job worker is considered as a manufacturer - liability to pay duty arises at time of clearance from job worker’s premises - value was rightly adopted on basis of the raw materials cost + job charges - prior to 31-3-03 no duty was payable on the grey fabrics hence goods manufactured prior to that date but cleared later are not liable to duty – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 228
  

  Issue pertains to demand of interest on the duty subsequently paid on revision of prices - goods were cleared by supplementary invoices to the customers on onward revision of prices - only duty is required to be paid, not interest – held that interest is not leviable when the differential duty is paid due to price variation- impugned order is set aside and appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 227
  

  Credit on Welding Electrode deniable as settled by the Larger Bench of Tribunal & therefore, the imposition of penalty is not justified - Credit on Winding Wires denied because appellant initially claimed it as inputs and subsequently, it was changed as capital goods - held that declaration filed by assessee in terms of Rule 57Q is sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on inputs u/r 57A – as per decision of Larger Bench in case of Modi Rubber Ltd., the credit on Winding Wire is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 224
  

  Assessee procured various parts for erection of power plant (non-conventional energy system) from different manufacturers – revenue noticed that the parts procured by assessee are not entitled for exemption – it shows that manufacturers who supplied these parts are liable for payment of duty - liability is clearly on the manufacturer & not on the person who receives the goods – revenue has recover duty from seller(manufacturer) hence revenue can’t proceed against assessee to collect duty twice

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 223
  

  Credit denied & penalties imposed on ground that invoice on the strength of which the credit was availed, was computer generated, & name of appellant was hand written - Circular 441/7/99-CX clarified that credit shall not be denied on procedural lapse if duty paid goods were used in the factory - assessee’s invoice contains the details viz description of the goods, AV, name & address of factory or warehouse where the goods are to be received - in view of this, denial of credit not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 222
  

  Credit availed on granules used in mfg. of final good – waste & scrap generated during manufacture - waste is an excisable commodity & is removed on payment of duty so there is no requirement of reversing the credit on it which is cleared for home consumption – when assessee has reversed credit on inputs contained in goods to be exported to claim drawback, there is no justification for demanding credit availed by the appellants on the scrap generated, which was only cleared on payment of duty

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 220
  

  Notional interest on the deposits taken by the appellant in respect of goods manufactured by them– revenue failed to establish any nexus between taking of advances and the price of the goods - amount taken as deposit was kept by them in the current account & no interest was earned on such deposit & therefore the price can’t be said to have been influenced by amount of deposit - held that price in such a case can’t be considered as been influenced by notional interest earned on the deposit

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 219
  

  Comm(A) while rejecting remission has clearly mentioned that this is an order, which can be appealed u/s 35B, if felt aggrieved - order, due to which the assessee’s right & liability is affected, is to be considered passed u/s 2(a)CEA – so impugned appeal is maintainable before tribunal – remission can’t be denied mere on basis that revenue authorities weren’t informed about fire accident(because of holiday on that day) with in 24 hrs, if assessee had informed police & fire brigade immediately

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 217
  

  Finished goods on which duty has been paid, returned back for remaking, refining etc., as these got damaged in transit - as there was damage the same couldn’t be used as input – these goods not subjected to any activity(manufacture) as per Rule 16 – credit on them is required to be reversed - confirmation of demand under modvat provisions(Rules 57-I & 57U) which were non-existing during relevant time(18.4.2000) are liable to be set aside – these provision have been substituted by not. 27/2000

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 215
  

  Excess duty drawback in respect of exports made - assessee accepted the wrong claim of duty drawback & made payment - no adjudication proceedings for confirmation of excess claimed drawback were initiated by revenue for a longer period – held that Revenue has no authority/jurisdiction to keep the said deposit amount with them for unlimited time in absence of any determination of the duty - Revenue has no justification for keeping the said amount with them – refund of same is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 214
  

  Appeals filed by dept. don’t indicate that the jurisdictional Comm. filing these appeals has come to a conclusion, as required u/s 35B (2) CEA, that the order passed by the lower app. authority isn’t legal in his opinion - in the absence of this no appeal can be entertained by this Tribunal - It is high time that Dept makes appropriate arrangements for effectively representing its cases by posting competent & adequate number of DRs or by engaging competent advocates – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 213
  

  In this case neither the capital goods have been cleared “as such” nor removed on sale so there is no justification to seek reversal on said goods, which after being put to use stand fully destroyed in the fire - finished goods & semi-finished goods fully destroyed in fire in spite of taking all the precautions so remission allowed - credit is not required to be reversed on inputs destroyed in fire - not involved intentionally in defrauding the exchequer so penalty, not justified

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 211
  

  Availed credit of duty paid on inputs & CG received for setting up of the power plant – power plant leased & received electricity at prescribed rates - There is no physical removal of CG or inputs from factory inasmuch as the power plant remained within the factory premises - Rule 11 CER which stipulates that removal of excisable goods from a factory must be made under an invoice is not applicable because plant remained captive(for mfg.cement)even after lease & impugned land was part of factory

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 209
  

  Failure to return back the inputs cleared for job work within 180 days under Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR - appellant is required to debit the duty if they fail to return back the job work material within the stipulated period - demand of duty on the inputs cleared for job work is upheld - shortage of inputs was detected during the stock verification - debited the duty immediately upon detection & before SCN – so penalty is set aside - manager not aware about shortages so penalty on him is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 207
  

  Comm (A) confirmed cess, interest & penalty on vehicles which were body built by appellant - In terms of the circular 41/88, it is clear that the cess is not to be levied or the chassis built by independent body builder as cess has already been paid on the chassis by manufacturer - clarification of the above circular has not been applied by the Commissioner and therefore, the confirmation of cess in the present case is not correct and the same is required to be set-aside including the penalty

  ---

1 ....101112131415161718........ 134