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 361 to 380 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (11) TMI 42
  

  Shortage of inputs admitted by appellant but no admission about clandestine removal – No corroboration made of private records or statement of concerned persons – Penalty u/s 11AC not imposable – As credit on those inputs have reversed immediately on detection so interest u/s 11AB not justified

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 38
  

  Denial of credit – Custom not accepted B/E – Dept. is not allowed to take advantage of its own wrongs – No upper most limit prescribed for allowing credit – No evidence shown by Dept. to deny credit – Dispute settled by Settlement Commission is not indicative of appellant’s malafides – Credit allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 36
  

  In terms of Rule 57E, in case of variation in the duty paid on any inputs, a certificate should be issued to enable the buyer of the inputs to avail the differential credit – Held that, even if duty was paid subsequent to adjudication order, differential credit is admissible

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 35
  

  Education Cess on Automobile Cess – Education Cess is levied on the aggregate of all duties of excise which are levied and collected by Central Govt. in the Ministry of Finance – But Automobile Cess is levied and collected only by officers of Revenue so no education cess is liable to be demanded

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 25
  
  The Supreme Court of India admitted an appeal regarding the classification of 'Vipul Booster' as either an "insecticide" or a "plant growth regulator." The court set aside the previous judgment and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The appeal was disposed of with delay condoned.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 24
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to CEGAT judgment allowing appeal filed by assessee against order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad regarding differential duty demand on transferred Ethyl Alcohol-Denatured (SDS). Dispute over assessable value determination under Central Excise Valuation Rules based on sale price of other manufacturers. Applicability of Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules. Consideration of nearest ascertainable equivalent for valuation. Disagreement on highest price basis for assessing value. Interpretation of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act. Distinction between related and non-related buyer scenarios. Adjudication of captive consumption argument. Review of CEGAT's reasoning and legal tenability.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involves a challenge to the CEGAT judgment allowing the assessee's appeal against the differential duty demand on transferred SDS, originating from two manufacturing units. The dispute centers on the assessable value determination under the Central Excise Valuation Rules, specifically Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii), with the revenue and assessee differing on the valuation basis. The core issue revolves around the requirement of establishing the nearest ascertainable equivalent for valuation purposes, as mandated by Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act. The contention arises from the revenue's reliance on the highest price basis for valuation, which the CEGAT found legally unsustainable.
  
  The disagreement extends to the application of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, depending on the buyer's relationship status. The appellant argues for the availability of comparable prices due to the presence of two manufacturing units, emphasizing captive consumption. CEGAT's decision to reject the one-day high price approach, despite potential Rule 6(b) applicability, raises questions about the valuation methodology and the absence of a formulated principle or reasoning.
  
  The Supreme Court's analysis highlights the need for a rational valuation approach based on ascertainable prices, whether highest or average, with due consideration to relevant factors and adjustments as per the Valuation Rules. The Court finds CEGAT's failure to determine an appropriate price and lack of legal tenability in discarding the assessing authority's valuation, necessitating a fresh consideration by CESTAT. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial discretion in valuation determinations and the requirement for a rationale in valuation fixation, emphasizing the legal clarity and reasoning in such decisions.
  
  In conclusion, the Supreme Court allows the appeal to the extent of setting aside CEGAT's order, directing a reassessment by CESTAT for a more legally sound valuation determination.

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 23
  

  Cenvat/Modvat – Appellant claimed the modvat credit on purchased equipment ‘loadall’ classify it under heading 84.27 but denied by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that said equipment classify by the manufacturer under Heading 84.29 - Penalty sustained and no new plea of appellant entertained by the SC

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 22
  

  Classification – The appellant herein manufacture HDPE bags classify it under Chapter 63 of CETA and accordingly pay the duty for the period 1-4-92 to 15-9-92 but as per CBE & C circular said product classifiable under Chapter 39 w.e.f. 24-9-92 – Held that no demand sustain prior to issuance of circular

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 21
  

  Show cause notice – Where a SCN is issued without jurisdiction, certainly in instant case, the HC court can interfere even at the stage of issuance of SCN – Impugned SCN is re-opening the issue which has already been concluded – Impugned SCN is just repetition of earlier SCN – Appeal rejected

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 20
  

  Amount recovered above the value declared in price list – Typographical error in price list in writing the price – No evidence regarding additional recovery – Finding recorded by Tribunal that there is short levy of ‘payable excise duty’ is not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 19
  

  Tribunal has upheld valuation u/s 6(b)(ii) of C.E.(V) Rules 1975 on cost method finding the lease agreement genuine – SC uphold the tribunal decision stating that department may apply different method of valuation but ultimately the goal is to ascertain correct/estimated assessable value

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 16
  

  Appeal to HC - The Commissioner by exercising his revisionary power enhanced the penalty amount which is set aside by the tribunal in his previous decision against which no appeal has been made -Tribunal set aside enhancement of penalty on the ground that no question of law arises

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 6
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) - Revenue contended that the goods (refrigerator) manufactured by appellant is a packaged commodity and require to mention MRP on it but appellant is not agreed with it - Held that revenue contention was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (11) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to CEGAT judgment on differential duty demand for SDS transfer from one unit to another, application of Central Excise Valuation Rules, determination of assessable value based on selling price of other manufacturers, legality of fixing assessable value on highest price basis, interpretation of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, dispute regarding application of Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. Challenge to CEGAT Judgment:
  The appeal challenged the CEGAT judgment regarding the differential duty demand on the transfer of SDS between manufacturing units. The dispute arose from the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, confirming a substantial duty demand on the SDS transferred from one unit to another. The respondents contended that the entire quantity of SDS was consumed in the manufacturing process at the receiving unit, justifying their valuation method based on costing.
  
  2. Application of Central Excise Valuation Rules:
  The dispute involved the application of Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 1975. The assessing authority alleged that the assessable value should be determined under Rule 6(b)(i) based on the selling price of other manufacturers. However, the respondents argued for valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii) on a costing basis, considering the captive consumption of SDS at the receiving unit.
  
  3. Determination of Assessable Value:
  The controversy centered on the method used to determine the assessable value of SDS. The authorities proposed fixing the value based on the highest selling price of SDS by other manufacturers on specific dates. The respondents objected, arguing that this approach was illegal and not reflective of the actual production costs incurred due to controlled raw material rates.
  
  4. Interpretation of Central Excise Act:
  The interpretation of Section 4(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was crucial in deciding the case. The provision mandates determining the nearest ascertainable equivalent value when the normal price of goods is not readily available. The CEGAT scrutinized whether the highest price fixation by the department aligned with the legal requirement of determining the nearest ascertainable equivalent.
  
  5. Dispute Regarding Valuation Rules:
  The conflict between Rule 6(b)(i) and Rule 6(b)(ii) of the Valuation Rules added complexity to the case. While the revenue relied on Rule 6(b)(i) for valuation, the assessee favored Rule 6(b)(ii) for costing-based assessment. The distinction between these rules and their application to the valuation of SDS played a significant role in the legal arguments presented.
  
  6. Final Judgment and Remittance:
  Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the CEGAT order, emphasizing the need for a proper determination of the assessable value based on ascertainable factors. The Court directed the case to be remitted to CESTAT for fresh consideration, highlighting the importance of a rational and legally sound approach to valuation under the Central Excise laws. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed on either party.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 720
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi heard stay petitions regarding service tax on manpower recruitment agency services. The appellants supplied manpower to clients and argued that the levy was limited before 16-6-2005. The Tribunal granted unconditional stay and waived pre-deposit of dues until the appeals are disposed of. The decision was pronounced on 31-10-2007.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 709
  
  The Bombay High Court admitted an appeal on a question of law from Appeal No. E/2184/06 and expedited the hearing. (2007 (10) TMI 709)

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 704
  
  Issues involved: Challenge to show cause notice u/s Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; Validity of circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Custom on 01.02.2007; Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere at show cause notice stage.
  
  Challenge to show cause notice: The petitioner Company challenged the show cause notice issued by the Department, alleging non-payment of excise duty amounting to &8377; 2709213/- on finished goods due to wrongly availing benefits of Notification No. 30/2004 CE. The petitioner approached the Court without replying to the notice, citing a circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Custom on 01.02.2007 as sealing their defense before the adjudicating authority.
  
  Validity of circular: The Department contended that the circular was clarificatory and not intended to dilute established law, asserting that the petitioners wrongly availed credit under the said circular. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority would be bound by the circular, making it unnecessary to reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner maintained that they did not wrongly avail credit and challenged the circular's validity, seeking Court intervention at the show cause notice stage.
  
  Jurisdiction of High Court: The Court cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing reluctance to interfere at the show cause notice stage unless the issuing authority lacks jurisdiction. It was noted that the authority must adjudicate in accordance with the law, and the Court should not disrupt proceedings based on a circular issued after the show cause notice. The Court declined to quash the notice, directing the authority to decide based on evidence and legal provisions.
  
  Precedents and Final Decision: Reference was made to legal precedents regarding availing credit and exemption notifications. The Court highlighted that the present case required the authority to consider specific circumstances before making a final decision. Ultimately, the writ petitions were dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners, who were directed to deposit the amount before the adjudicating authority within two weeks.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 703
  
  The Karnataka High Court ruled that interest under Section 11AB cannot be levied if modvat credit remains unutilized and is reversed by the assessee before any show cause notice is issued. The judgment was based on a similar ruling by the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The petition was allowed in favor of the assessee.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 680
  
  The Gujarat High Court dismissed a petition regarding the exemption of a partnership firm engaged in dyeing cotton fabrics without power. The court found disputed facts regarding the use of power in the dyeing process, leading to the dismissal of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 679
  
  The High Court of Bombay expedited the hearing of an appeal related to Central Excise. The respondents waived service and the appeal will be heard along with another case.

  ---

1 ....151617181920212223........ 134