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 81 to 100 of 2676 Records

• 2007 (12) TMI 215
  

  Interest on irregular cenvat credit – Held that - On a plain reading of the above rule it is clear that since the respondent assessee used the Cenvat credit wrongly he became liable to pay duty along with interest as provided under the said rules. The provisions of Sections 11A, 11AA and 11AB provided for procedure for recovery of the said duty along with interest in case the assessee fails to pay the same. - the Tribunal was not justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority in levying interest on the amount of credit which was availed by the respondent-assessee wrongly though the same was paid by the assessee prior to issuance of show cause notice. With the result the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 210
  

  Admissibility of credit on capital goods (power unit) which have been sold but not removed from premises - transactions of sale of power unit and simultaneous lease of premises are wisely resorted to by the assessee as a device to avoid the tax liability on it - said purchaser, after purchasing the power unit from the assessee, has been enjoying the same as its absolute owner and has been supplying to the assessee the power generated from the said power unit on payment basis - this being so it is quite evident that the assessee-company lost its ownership and also control over the said power unit - Tribunal without proper appreciation of the said transactions has allowed the appeal of the assessee-company – revenue’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 209
  

  Export of exempted goods - common inputs in dutiable goods and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate accounts as contemplated by Rule 6(2) – held that in such case where goods are exported, direction by revenue to the petitioner to pay 10% of sale price of exempted goods u/r 6(3)(b) is not justified - If the exempted products are exported outside India the provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR are applicable. Therefore, the bar provided u/r 6(1) and the liability created u/r 6(3)(b) are not attracted – therefore, credit is available on “inputs used in mfg. of goods exported” even if goods are exempted

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 208
  

  “Universal measuring machine” used to find out whether goods (automobile components) manufactured fit into specification or design – such machine fall within definition of Capital goods - revenue contend that even without this machine product can be manufactured – but that does not mean that revenue can direct the assessee to manufacture goods without the use of the machine in question – credit cannot be disallowed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 204
  

  Interest payable on delayed refund - In pursuance of the audit objection, the appellant paid the disputed amount on 24-11-2001; claimed refund on 7-1-2002; the same was rejected by the original authority; Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 29-4-05 allowed the appeal - When, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order of the original authority and allowed the refund claim the interest liability should have been determined with reference to the date of the claim that is 7-1-2002

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 202
  

  ROM application by Revenue - penalty upon the appellants stands set aside by the Bench on the ground that the matter was not free from doubt and during the relevant period there was a decision by the Tribunal in favour of the assessees – revenue relying upon the decision of LB of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indica Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable - setting aside of penalties in the present order cannot be held to be a mistake requiring any rectification - application is rejected

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 192
  

  SSI unit - whether the value of inputs (plastic film, plastic laminated film) manufactured & captively consumed in the mfg. of final goods (plastic pouches) was to be excluded from the aggregate clearance value – as per SSI Notification No. 8/98, the aggregate value of clearances of all the specified goods should be taken for the entire period not for segments of period – only after correct computation, one has to see as to whether the limit was exceeded or not – case remanded

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 188
  

  Finalization of Provisional assessment - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Revenues appeals and directed that the lower authority should quantify both demand and refund invoice-wise without netting off and deal both quantities separately – held that entire monthly excess and short payment cannot be netted off to adjust excess payment against short payment - department’s contention is correct and the Commissioner’s order with regard to the correct procedure to be adopted is legal and proper

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 177
  

  Return back of duty paid finished goods - duly recorded in register - alleged that appellant cleared duty paid returned after processing without payment of duty without following procedure u/r 16(1) & 16(2) – in spite that assessee was eligible to take credit on the duty paid return goods, appellant has neither availed credit nor paid duty on removal of re-processed goods, which is against the Law - Technical reasons for denying substantive benefit is not called for – matter remanded

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 174
  
  Issues:
  1. Recovery of Cenvat credit and penalty for availing credit on inputs not used in manufacturing excisable goods.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved an appeal filed by the Revenue against an order allowing the appeal of the respondents regarding the recovery of Cenvat credit and penalty for allegedly availing credit on inputs not used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The respondents, engaged in manufacturing man-made yarn under the Cenvat credit scheme, cleared yarn after rewinding and repacking, using certain inputs for which they availed credit. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the processing of rewinding and repacking did not amount to manufacture, thus the credit on inputs used in such activities should not be allowed.
  
  The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the demand and penalty, holding that credit cannot be denied for inputs used in activities like reconditioning or remaking defective products during the manufacturing process. However, the appellate tribunal disagreed with this reasoning. The tribunal found that the rewinding and repacking done by the respondents did not constitute manufacturing but rather amounted to repairing the goods, for which credit on inputs is not permissible. The tribunal emphasized that the manufacturer is not entitled to credit for inputs used in repair activities as repair does not qualify as manufacturing under the Cenvat Credit Rules.
  
  Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the adjudicating authority, which confirmed the demand for recovery of Cenvat credit and imposition of penalty on the respondents. The appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed based on the principle that credit on inputs used for repair activities, such as rewinding and repacking, is not admissible under the Cenvat Credit Rules.

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 172
  

  Show-cause notice was issued denying credit in respect of quantity of inputs on the ground that the inputs were not received - statutory record maintained in respect of the duty paid inputs such as RG-23 Part-I and II, the quantity of inputs were shown to be received in the factory - In absence of any evidence that the same quantity was received by the appellant from some other sources it cannot be held that the appellant had not received such quantities – credit allowable

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 163
  

  Enhancement of rate of duty – sales realization by the appellant consisted of assessable value + excise duty - appellant wants the amount recovered by them initially as the AV to be treated as cum duty price which is devoid of any logic – Dept. has correctly taken the entire sale proceeds as cum-duty price & worked backwards duty payable at 25% - interest payable shall be for the revised amount as arrived at by Asst. Commissioner on the basis of the Tribunal’s order

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 160
  

  Whether accumulated credit (not utilized) can be refunded – Not. 10/89 provides that the credit utilized on Poly Vinyl Chloride for payment of duty on textile fabrics shall not exceed Rs.3.50 per sq.mt., and the excess credit available under RG 23-A account shall not be refunded or adjusted – refund not allowed – appeal of assessee dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 158
  

  Quantity discount - once the discounts were additional, the eligibility to the same could have been checked only at the end of F.Y., when only the turnover of customers could have been known - mere filing of price declaration and RT 12 returns for a limited period do not help their case - appellants were not passing on the discounts came to dept. notice, only in investigations, not earlier- hence demand is justified both on merits s well as the limitation – matter remanded for recomputation

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 151
  

  Credit on CG denied on the ground that the nature of the said capital goods have been written off before use – it is clear that the capital goods had been scrapped as the automobile models in which they were to be used, became obsolete - there is no provisions that if capital goods have not been used for its full life, can be treated as the same has not been used - CG in question have been used in mfg. of final products & they are still lying in the factory, hence credit can’t be denied

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 140
  

  Inputs procured domestically and by import – imported parts and spares were sold as such, not used in manufacture – credit denied of CVD availed on the goods imported on ground that these goods were sold as such in India without using them in manufacturing - Duty paid at time of clearance should be treated as reversal of the alleged ineligible credit – demand, interest and penalty is not maintainable – but credit on goods sent to job-worker, not returned in180 days is required to be reversed

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 139
  

  Credit - appellant, manufacturers of readymade garments - inputs, in respect of which credit was taken, had been purchased from depots of various manufacturers of cotton yarn & availment of credit was on the strength of depot invoices - inputs were procured from extended arms of the manufacturers thereof & credit in question was taken on the basis of invoices issued by the manufacturers’ from their depots – credit can’t be disallowed on ground of documents mere for non registration of depots

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 137
  

  EOU - revenue proceeded to deny benefit of not. 2/95 on the ground that assessee had not made any physical exports & also they are not entitled to clear goods to DTA - appellants had produced evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the actual physical exports - held that the supplies to World Bank & ADB which are considered as deemed exports would be taken into account for defining the DTA Quota - LOP has been extended at the appropriate time – order of demand interest penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 127
  

  Because of compounded levy scheme appellant couldn’t utilize accumulated deemed credit – when scheme got withdrawn assessee was entitled to utilize deemed credit – credit could not be utilized & in the mean time good became exempted – question arise of cash refund of that credit– assessee is directed to produce evidence that they have not claimed drawback/rebate of the same before 10 years – matter remanded as circumstantial evidences are required to be considered in absence of direct evidence

  ---

• 2007 (12) TMI 126
  

  Not. 46/94 entitles supply of Aviation Turbine Fuel at concessional rate of duty only to those flights which are foreign going flight – exemption cannot be denied merely because impugned foreign flight land at intermediate port (or airport in India) before starting international journey – only because of such landing at Indian airport, impugned flight which carries foreign bound passengers, cannot be considered as domestic flight – Exemption allowable to Fuel under not. 46/94

  ---

123456789........ 134