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 481 to 500 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 214
  

  Mfg. of sulphuric acid & fertilizers - cleared Sulphuric Acid partly on payment of duty & consumed captively - No duty was paid on captive consumption- alleged that the appellants used duty paid inputs Vandadium Pantaoxide on the exempted final product (Sulphuric Acid) - appellants reversed the credit of duty on inputs utilized in mfg. of exempted final product therefore, demand u/r 6(3)(b) is not sustainable since there is no relevancy that appellants didn’t maintain sufficient inventories

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 213
  

  Whether credit on polythene bags used for dispensing the materials necessary for undertaking batch-wise production in the factory can be allowed & whether they can be considered as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products as per the erstwhile Rule 57-A -- scope of the term ‘inputs’ is very wide as interpreted by various judicial fora - polythene bags have indeed been used in mfg. of final product, though they may not directly form parts of products itself – credit allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 211
  

  Plastic crates, which were used in their factory premises for transportation, storing of raw materials & finished goods – SCN issued on ground that credit not admissible on plastic crates as these are not used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products – held that if manufacture of final product cannot take place without the process in question then that process is an integral part of the activity of manufacture of the final product hence credit cannot be denied on them

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 210
  

  Related person - Revenue proceeded against assessee to enhance the value of goods, raise demand & penalty – allegation is that assessee hadn’t declared their association & agreement with TDCEL in the mfg. & testing activities of TVs. & value had been deliberately suppressed by excluding mfg. cost - A joint venture with a Govt. corp. holding more than 25% of its shares can’t be held to have mutuality of interest with TDCEL – Both companies operated at arms length - revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 209
  

  As per VR 2 (b), Assessee is required to pay duty at the price at which the greatest aggregate quantity is sold on a particular date when sale is made at different prices on same day – demand confirmed by comm.(A) is set aside, as assessment was provisional, assessee plea that there has been excess payment as well as short payments must be verified by revenue to arrive at the final amount of duty, if any liable to be paid or to refund – cash discounts allowable subjected to verification

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 205
  

  Contention of appellant is that the goods in question are forgings & are classifiable u/CH 7326.19 & entitled for the benefit of Not. 223/88 - revenue contended CH 87 & 84 as parts of the Automobiles - As the forgings cleared by the appellants are not used as such & the customers under take further processes of turning, the milling, drilling, grooving on them, therefore, the same cannot be held to be parts of Automobile – goods classifiable under heading7326.19

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 203
  

  Opted for SSI exemption u/not.08/01 & cleared goods at Nil rate of duty - assessee had correctly utilized the credit when these final products were chargeable to duty - there was no one to one relationship of the inputs used & final products manufactured - It has rightly been held that the credit of duty paid on inputs can’t be confined to a particular raw-material to which the credit is related & out of which a final product is manufactured – so assessee weren’t required to reverse the credit

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 202
  

  Not. 25/03 clears that only on the value of the grey fabrics credit can be taken – declaration filed disclosing the stock – appellants weren’t sure about the above fact so in decelerations, value of unprocessed goods were shown on the higher side – if assessee was not clear about the condition of notification he could seek the assistance of their jurisdictional authorities – as no help was sought by assessee, demand cannot be held to be barred by limitation – personal penalty vacated

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 200
  

  Use of inputs in dutiable & exempted goods - credit had been reversed related to exempted goods with interest - hence, the question of directing the assessee to pay 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods which runs to an exorbitant 340% is not justified and proper - plea of the appellants for availing the benefit as they have reversed the credit is required to be accepted in terms of the judgments cited by them - all these four appeals are allowed with consequential relief

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 199
  

  Revenue had proceeded to enhance the price of Molasses removed to Kutcha Pit - value of the molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit cannot be compared with the price of molasses stored in tanks - They are different clearances and the parameters followed by them are also different - Revenue is not justified in enhancing the value of the molasses cleared to the Kutcha Pit in comparison with the price of molasses cleared from storage tanks. The demand is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 198
  

  Bought out items such as cable, cards, etc. used for installation of “Attendance Data Management Systems” are necessary for function of the system - duty has already been paid on all bought out items so value of these bought out items can’t be added to value of impugned systems - held that erection and commissioning charges are not includible in the A V of the machinery because sale value of any machinery is entirely distinct from the charges collected for erection and commissioning

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 197
  

  Application for recalling / rectification has been dismissed on the ground that the same would amount to an exercise in review jurisdiction - Before the Tribunal, matter proceeded on a concession - where the material on record was not considered, that would fall within the expression ‘rectification’ and not review - impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for rehearing the rectification application in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 195
  

  Tribunal has passed an order in the matter of determination of rate of duty. On such determination of the rate of duty and considering the violation, penalty has been imposed - As per sec. 35G, CEA as the penalty is incidental to fixation of rate of duty, the appeals would not be maintainable before this Court but before SC

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 194
  

  Availment of refund two times - Earlier, the refund was availed by making a suo moto credit entry in the PLA - Thereafter, the appellant again obtained refund by encashing two cheques, which were issued in response to their two refund applications – penalty imposable u/s 11AC equal to wrongly availed refund – interest also chargeable under section 11AB

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 193
  

  Positive averment in the classification declaration that they were manufacturing MS pipes both of their own brand as well as bearing brand name of other persons was deliberately false – they were mfg. only their own brand name & misdeclaration was resorted to for the purpose of wrongfully availing benefit of exemption under SSI not. l/93 - willful evasion of duty – demand not time barred - penalty u/s 11AC cannot be imposed when the period of dispute is prior to introduction of Sec. 11AC

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 192
  

  Assessees have not taken the deemed credit in their deemed credit register at the time of clearances of the finished goods but they have taken the same in their deemed credit register a few days after the clearance - in the deemed credit system, an additional stipulation is made to that extent that credit cannot be taken earlier to the date of clearance of the final product – so demand raised for delay in availment of credit is set aside – order of original authority and Comm (A) are justified

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 191
  

  Remission of duty of molasses, lost during storage - Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the remission application on the ground that the appellants have not taken due care and precautions to prevent mishandling of molasses - loss is only 0.68% and 0.36% respectively - in terms of CBEC circular No.261/15/82-CX.8 dt.18.7.83, storage loss upto 2% is condonable - losses claimed by the assessee upto 2% cannot be denied for storage loss - impugned orders cannot be sustained and are set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 190
  

  Manufacture of ‘Colour Picture Tubes (in short CPTs) - received back duty paid CPTs from their customer for repair and rectification purposes - Rule 173H of the erstwhile Rules is applicable - Rule 173L covers the provisions of remaking, re fined and reconditioning or subject to any other similar process in the factory while in this case the goods were meant for repair only and therefore, these goods should have been cleared under erstwhile Rule 173H – refund claimed under 173L is disallowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 189
  

  Appellant, co-noticee, receiver of goods – seizure, confiscation & penalty - as the goods are being received by him under proper Central Excise gate passes, he cannot be held guilty of any contravention of Central Excise provisions - no evidence of involvement of appellant with manufacturer - there may be a dispute regarding classification between the manufacturers & dept. but buyer, trader can’t be held accused even if appellant had knowledge that dept. has sought different classification

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 188
  

  Goods procured at NIL rate of duty u/not.. 34/01 for use in the mfg. of goods to be exported - goods rejected and returned to the supplier (without payment of duty) – demand raised on ground that procured goods were not used for intended purposes is not justified - duty paid under protest – such return cannot be termed as utilization of goods for purpose other than intended – moreover incidence of duty cannot be passed as duty has been paid subsequent to clearance – refund allowed

  ---

1 ....212223242526272829........ 134