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 321 to 340 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 139
  

  Cement mfg. – captive mines adjacent to their factory – in view of SC in another case captive mines are to be construed as an integral unit of the concerned cement factory - If the duty paid on the capital goods such as crusher and transformers are available as credit for the concerned cement manufacturing unit, then crusher & transformer will be consider as used in relation to mfg. of cement – credit allowed to furnace oil used in generation of electricity, supplied through transformer

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 133
  

  Transitional credit on stock of fabrics, which were procured under DEEC scheme – reversed immediately when detected in audit - When the law permitted the transitional credit on the goods lying in stock with the manufacturer of processed fabrics, they had taken the credit on non-duty paid material received under DEEC - cannot be considered deliberate mistake – interest was held not imposable as there is no intention to evade duty – if interest is not imposable then penalty is also not imposable

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 131
  

  Blankets of shoddy yarn in which wool predominates – Sec. note 2(A) of sec. XI clearly state that a product under Chapters 56 to 63 containing 2 ore more textile material are to be regarded as if consisting wholly of that one textile material which predominates by weight over another - blankets in dispute have to be considered as blankets of wool only – Not. 8/96 brought changes regarding ceiling limit only – so entitled to exemption under serial 152(a) to not. 4/97 – demand set aside

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 129
  

  Non-maintenance of separate inventory and accounts – common inputs for exempted and dutiable products - held that, if a manufacturer has opted to pay to the Revenue such amount (being a percentage of the sale price of the exempted goods) as prescribed under sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/2002/2004, it shall not be necessary for him to reverse any credit taken on inputs which were used in the manufacture of the exempted final product.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 126
  

  penalty u/r 96ZP(3) of CER - opted to pay duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme - delay of 15 days in payment - Sec 3A of CEA & rule 96ZP(3) of CER are independent provisions - Compounded Levy Scheme is a comprehensive & general provisions in the CEA & CER are needed to be excluded - discretion to levy penalty u/r 96ZP has to be exercised judiciously regarding fact of the given case - impugned order is set aside in view the facts and circumstances of the case & the delay, penalty reduced

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 119
  

  Appellants paid duty precautionary as they were in doubt that slitting of the films amount to manufacture or not – held that once there is no demand and duty has been paid voluntarily without protest, the same can’t be set aside – but penalty not imposable - not availed any credit of PVC films but cleared them on payment of duty even though no process was carried out - denial of credit of the duty paid by the appellants to its customer – held that only customer can file an appeal

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 118
  

  Subsequent to the clearance of the goods assessee raised supplementary invoices for additional amount on ground that they have used more materials than what was expected at time of contract- no allegation of price variation clause - Further, the supplementary invoices haven’t been honoured - so the transaction price hasn’t been altered – demand unsustainable - No evidence to show that inputs removed as such were manufactured so the reversal of credit taken at the original price is enough

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 117
  

  Duty was paid on the free samples which were cleared as a combination pack which was assessed under the provisions of Section 4A of the CEA - they had not charged any amount from the customers for the free sample - evidence shown regarding non-passing of amount of refund to their buyers - In the cases of assessment done u/s 4A, the evidence is only the invoice, document which would indicate whether the refund claim is passed on to the customer or not – refund allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 116
  

  Revenue’s appeal is that Sales tax collected but not deposited with the Sales Tax Authorities was not deductible from the sales price - absence of any evidence from Revenue showing that the Sales Tax collected by the Respondent was with any ulterior motive – deduction permitted

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 115
  

  Stock of inputs as on 1-4-2000 which were bought from the units working under Compounded Levy Scheme which stood abolished from 31-3-2000 - Circular No. 522/2000, dated 31-3-2000 permitted the assessees to take deemed credit of duty in respect of such inputs – duly wrote a letter to Jurisdictional Officers to inform about taking credit - proceedings proposing to deny the credit to them is not legal - appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 114
  

  Goods in question were sold to a related buyer [holding-company] who captively consumed the goods for further manufacture of excisable goods - case where related buyer doesn’t sell the goods but consumes it in the manufacture of other goods is covered by the proviso to Rule 9 - By virtue of this proviso, Rule 8 gets attracted & accordingly the A.V. shall be 115% of the cost of production of the goods - Rule 11 (price actually charged to the related buyer) not applicable for valuation

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 113
  

  Findings of the C.(A) that CH 8705 is more specific than CH 8426 for classifying ‘hydraulic truck mounted mobile crane’ is rejected - mere description of the project as truck crane, truck mount crane in the invoices, packing lists, bills of lading cannot be the main guiding factor in determining the classification - Even in these descriptions the emphasis is to the crane aspect of the product & not to the truck aspect - covered by the exclusion clause of CH 8705 – CH 8426 appears reasonable

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 112
  

  Record reveals that for the cause of action that arose on 27-11-2002 it took fifteen months for issuance of show cause notice and finally issued on 5-3-2004 - This ground alone is enough to direct that the proceeding was initiated without any seriousness and without following due process of law - Such a latch makes the Revenue’s appeal fatal. Consequently, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 110
  

  Assessee purchased some inputs from manufacturer - raised debit notes for the inferior quality of the material supplied, which resulted in reduction of the value paid by the respondent - contention of the Revenue that the credit has also to be proportionately reduced is wrong - reduction of the price is a commercial. Transaction - duty paid on the T.V. by the supplier not disputed - no claim of refund of duty by supplier - there cannot be any reduction of the credit, at the respondent’s end

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 108
  

  Duty demand confirmed against the appellant herein, who is supplier of inputs for the waste and scrap generated at the job workers’ end – supplier can not be held liable on the ground that the worker had not discharged duty liability on impugned waste and scrap - set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 107
  

  Delayed grant of refund - Applicant contending that interest due to it was to be calculated on the basis of its refund application filed on 5-2-98 – held that Revenue will resolve the repeated litigation made by it, entertaining claim of the Appellant for interest on refund w.e.f. 5-5-98 i.e. three months after exercise of right to refund by Application dated 5-2-98

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 106
  

  Held that MTOP[Minimum Take or Pay] charges paid by the buyer to the assessee on account of the former’s failure to take the minimum guaranteed quantity of the excisable goods [Oxygen Nitrogen etc.] were not additional consideration for the goods actually sold and hence not to be included in assessable value

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 102
  

  Remission application – revenue is not denying the fact that the quantity mentioned in application is destroyed by fire – revenue’s officer has verified the same by visiting the site – commissioner is not justified to deny remission by saying that assessee has not proved that fire was unavoidable

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 97
  

  Along with castings, assessee clear the pattern developed by him on paying duty on T.V. – Rule 6 not invokable to include cost of pattern in A.V. of castings as no additional consideration is received for patterns – no suppression – informed to dept. – larger period not invokable to raise demand

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 96
  

  In SC’s view in another cases, ‘lighting fitting & cables’ would qualify for benefit as capital goods u/r 57Q as production is impossible without use of them – tribunal decision in instant case in favor of assessee does not need to be interfered – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

1 ....131415161718192021........ 134