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 461 to 480 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 309
  
  Issues:
  1. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner of Customs for failure to pre-deposit the amount as directed.
  2. Jurisdiction of appellate authorities in passing orders without giving an opportunity to move the Court for appropriate relief.
  3. Classification dispute of imported product Lutavit.
  4. Application of previous judgments on the classification issue.
  5. Exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner (Appeals) in directing pre-deposit.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding a product named Lutavit, with an interim order to deposit 50% of the differential duty. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal due to failure to pre-deposit. The High Court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to seek relief before dismissing an appeal to avoid unnecessary litigation.
  
  2. The Court highlighted the need for appellate authorities to allow petitioners to approach the Court for appropriate relief before dismissing appeals. The objective should be to minimize litigation and provide opportunities for resolution without escalating legal disputes unnecessarily.
  
  3. The product in question, Lutavit, was previously subject to a Writ Petition where classification disputes were raised. Previous judgments, including one from the Supreme Court, were cited to support the petitioner's position on the classification issue. The Court considered the prior decisions in favor of the petitioner.
  
  4. Based on previous judgments related to the classification of the same product, the Court held that the Commissioner should have considered the earlier decision before directing pre-deposit. The order to dismiss the appeal and the pre-deposit directive were set aside, allowing the appeal to be heard on its merits without pre-deposit requirements.
  
  5. The Court made the rule absolute without any costs, emphasizing the importance of exercising jurisdiction judiciously and considering previous decisions in similar matters to ensure fairness and consistency in legal proceedings.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 308
  

  Whether the Tribunal justified in law by expressing opinion that extended period of limitation as postulated u/s 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted despite the factum there has been suppression of material fact arising out of the confessional statement made by the Chief Executive of the Assessee Company?

  Held that:- Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix and the law governing the field and keeping in view the solitary bald statement of the officer of the assessee we are our considered opinion that this is not a fit case to issue a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question of law as mentioned in the petition. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 303
  

  Whether the items can be considered as "consumable" on the facts of the case?

  Held that:- Dealing with a case under a Sales Tax statutes, i.e. Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, this Court held that the word "consumable" takes colour from and must be read in the light of the words that are its neighbours "raw material", "component part", sub-assembly part" and "intermediate part". So read, it is clear that the word "consumables" therein refers only to material which is utilized as an input in the manufacturing process but is not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it has got consumed therein. It is for this reason, a departure was made from the concept that "consumable" fall within the broader scope of the words "raw materials". In the cases at hand "consumable" are treated differently from "raw materials". Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 280
  

  Clandestine removal - statutory records/other private records can be relied after giving opportunity of hearing to appellant – original authority plaing reliance on register which does not show the actual clearance but contained only the orders received - reliance placed on the chartered engineer’s certificate to estimate production capacity is not appropriate - charge of unaccounted production and clandestine removal is upheld - matter remanded to re-determine duty, penalty and interest

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 272
  

  Grinding and mixing Guar Dal for obtaining Guar gum – held that impugned process amounts to manufacture - held that the Guar Gum would be properly classifiable under Chapter 11.01, as a product of milling industry which attract ‘nil’ rate of duty – impugned order confirming demand and imposing penalties are set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 268
  

  Goods destroyed in fire – since there is no dispute about destruction of final product and input and capital goods in fire, remission of duty in respect of finished product cannot be denied - consequently demand on the final product is not to be upheld - As regards Modvat credit involved in various inputs or interim product, we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries – held that demand is not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 258
  

  Credit in respect of “electrical spares for roll grinding machine” and “drill machine” - electrical spare for roll grinding machine which is used to get correct surface finish on aluminum sheets are accepted as “spare” so they are covered by the definition of capital goods u/r 57Q - hence credit on the same cannot be denied - drilling machines used for the purpose of maintenance in the workshop, are also eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 244
  

  Includibility of advertisement and publicity charges (incurred by the dealers) in the assessable value of vehicles (manufactured and sold to the dealers by the appellants) - held that advertisement cost sharable between the manufacturers and the dealers can not be included in the assessable value, as the advertisement promoted the sale of the dealers also – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 243
  

  Respondents were getting the goods manufactured from their job workers and was availing Cenvat credit facility - though the respondents were not entitled to credit as they have not undertaken any manufacturing activity but the facts remains that they have paid duty on the final products in which the inputs was used and the quantum of duty paid on the final products is not less than the credit taken on the inputs – demand set aside on account of revenue neutrality

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 242
  

  Common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable & exempted final products - appellant kept invoices relating to purchase of goods for the two streams but did not maintain separate accounts as required under erstwhile Rule 57AD of CER/Rule 6(3) of CCR - have to pay an amount equal to the 8% of the price of the exempted final products in terms of Rule 57AD (2)(b) and 57I of the C E R and, from 26.02.01 in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR – demand is sustained but penalty is reduced

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 240
  

  Interest on the delayed refund – refund claim filed earlier but settled after Tribunal’s order - application for refund should be made within one year from the date of payment of duty under protest - appeal of the appellant is allowed and it is directed that the appellants be given appropriate rate of interest, which was prevailing during the period, for the period beyond of three months from the date of filing of claim

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 239
  

  Appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed by commissioner (A) by opining that it was barred by time - provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 Act would apply to Section 35 of Central Excise Act by virtue of judgments of Supreme Court in several cases - Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to consider the case of the petitioners by taking into account the fact as to whether the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 238
  

  Shortage of irregular and regular marble slabs – demand & penalty - shortage was admitted by the petitioner - petitioner failed to substantiate the facts and grounds, raised in the appeal that shortage is due to long storage of marble - substantial question of law framed in the reference petition does not arise – assessee’s petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 233
  

  Refund claim for unutilized credit of AED (T&TA) – no dispute to the substantial compliance of the Rule 5 of CCR – appellants declared that they have not filed any other claim for refund u/r 5 to which this claim relates – held that so long export of goods and proper taking of Cenvat credit are not in dispute, refund claim cannot be denied for procedural lapses – rejection of the refund claims for non-fulfillment of the proviso to Clause-2 of the Appendix to the said Not. 11/02 is unjustified

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 222
  

  Appellants received Price Variation Bills (P.V.B) & paid differential duty - demand of duty raised u/r 8 of CER - it is clear that Rule 8 is only applicable at the time of removal of goods from factory or warehouse - in present case, PVB were raised due to Price Variation Clause after removal of the goods from the factory. So Rule 8 is not applicable - allegation that appellants have wrongly utilized the credit towards payment of duty against PVB is not sustainable – demand & interest set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 221
  

  Shortage of goods – non-maintenance of proper accounts – minimum penalty is Rs. 10,000 - adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 - reduction of the penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) less than Rs. 10,000/- is not sustainable - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of reduction of penalty to Rs. 2,000/- is set aside - order of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty is restored - appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 218
  

  Appellant, job worker – as per Circular 306/22/97, duty liability is on principal manufacturer, not on job worker even if principal mfr. has not availed benefit u/not. 83/94 - liability of the principal manufacturer can’t be extinguished on ground that relationship between them is on a principal-to-principal basis - held that demand of duty on job worker for reason that raw material supplier has not followed provisions of Not. 214/86, is not correct – demand also time barred – no suppression

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 217
  

  Tribunal held that Revenue has failed to produce any evidence of clandestine removal & sale of goods - tribunal found that demand of duty on raw material found short is based on the presumption that the raw material must have been used in mfg. final products - suspicion cannot replace the requirement of proof by presuming that there was mens rea - jurisdiction of Tribunal u/s 35A & 35C is different from power of HC u/s 35G – revenue’s appeal dismissed – tribunal order is justified

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 216
  

  Petitioner has also availed of the benefit of DEPB, therefore, under Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be allowed simultaneously - restriction is kept because reimbursement of duty incidence cannot be allowed twice- petitioner has got benefit of DEPB and for the same goods, he is claiming rebate under Rule 12(l)(b), is not justified - present petition is not tenable in law and required to be dismissed with costs

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 215
  

  Appellants, registered dealer – penalty u/r 173Q(1)(bbb) imposed on appellant alleging that he issued modvatable invoices to the buyers without supplying the material on ground that vehicle number is mentioned wrongly in invoice - there is no statement by appellant, supplier & recipient of the inputs that the appellant issued modvatable invoice without supplying the material – no material to prove that the appellant willfully entered incorrect particulars in the invoices – penalty not imposable

  ---

1 ....202122232425262728........ 134