Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA 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-- 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 >= 3 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 1 to 20 of 2754 Records

• 2008 (12) TMI 780 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ober, 2008. He has submitted that two consignments received then were allowed to be cleared on deposit of sum of ₹ 7,50,000/ . A similar order be made on this application. He has submitted that for the consignment in question, duty in the sum of ₹ 1,67,814/ is payable. On deposit of such amount in the registry of this Court, the opponents-authority be directed to issue necessary Concession Certificate. Learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing for the opponents has no objection if order to that extent is made on this Application. Application is allowed to the extent that on applicant's depositing the aforesaid sum of ₹ 1,67,814/ in the registry of this Court, the Opponent no. 4-Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise Division-III, Silvassa will issue necessary Concession Certificate to the applicant in respect of the goods imported under the Bill of Entry No. 766981 dated 23rd October, 2008 Annexure-A to the application . Registry will issue the writ forthwith.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 779 - SC ORDER
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nsel for the respondent had deposited in this Court ₹ 20,16,952/- as the demanded amount and for the balance amount he had furnished security. However, the said amount of ₹ 20,16,952/- remained lying with the Registry in non-interest bearing account as the appellant had not taken any steps to withdraw the said amount. In view of above, Registry is directed to release the aforesaid deposit of ₹ 20,16,952/- to the respondent along with the original title deeds of property furnished as security. Interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 739 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  SSI exemption - denial on the ground that assessee availed CENVAT/MODVAT credit - It is also the case of the department that scrap being the result of manufacture, duty is required to be paid at the time of its clearance

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 725 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 instead of dismissing the appeal it should have proceeded slowly. Since it is evident from the order dated 27th November, 2008 that the Tribunal was aware that the writ petition challenging the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 is pending, the order dated 27th November, 2008 cannot be sustained and is also set aside and quashed. Hence, the Tribunal is directed to hear out the application for recalling the order dated 7th/9th July, 2008 afresh after giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. 7. Since the respondents were not called upon to file affidavits controverting the allegations, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by them. 8. The writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated. 9. There will be no order as to costs. 10. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 722 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Clearance of Partially Oriented Yarn (POY) to 100% EOU - clearance for captive consumption - demand of NCCD - N/N. 108/95-CE dated 28.8.95

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 684 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Stay of pre-deposit - Cement cleared in 50 Kgs. packs to Govt. companies, construction companies and other industrial/institutional consumers during the relevant period - N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - holding that the benefit of notification is available to the appellants.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 683 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and as this aspect was overlooked by the Legal Metrology expert also by the learned Commissioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Board 39 s clarification on the relevant question was wrongly by-passed by the adjudicating authority. We have found favour with the assessee 39 s case in view of the clarification issued by the CBEC, which is to the effect that no RSP requires to be printed on the goods sold to 39 industrial/institutional consumers 39 as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under Sl.No.1B and 1C of Notification No.4/2006-CE by virtue of the Second proviso to the Explanation to Sl.No.1C of the Notification as amended. The Board 39 s clarification squarely covers the case in favour of the assessee. 4. Following the ratio of the above order in Grasim Industries Ltd case (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open court.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 675 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Interest on refund - Held that:- The interest which can be allowed to be paid to the petitioners is only from the final adjudication in the matter (as the decision of the High Court was not carried further in appeal), i.e. from 18-7-2005, whereas the department has already paid the amount of refund to the petitioners on 26-6-2005 and therefore, there is no question of passing any order of payment of interest to the petitioners. Otherwise also, for a substantial period, the amount was lying with the Consumer Welfare Fund and not with the department.

  In the result, the petition fails. The petitioners are not entitled to receive any interest amount on the refund amount, as after the High Court dismissed the appeal of the department’s appeal on 18-7-2005, the finality was achieved by the controversy, whereas the department had already refunded the amount on 26-6-2005 and therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 632 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... all give cogent reasoning in case of rebuttal of such points..... However, our learned adjudicating authority seems to be blissfully unaware of these instructions. 11.5 I therefore fully agree with the appellants rsquo contention that the impugned Order is ldquo unlawful, biased, partisan rdquo as it was passed without considering their submissions and ldquo without distinguishing any of the case laws cited in the reply to the impugned notice rdquo and also that the impugned order was passed ldquo violating the principles of judicial discipline causing avoidable harassment to the trade as well as to the Government rdquo 12. In view of the above discussions, the impugned Order is set aside except to the extent of directing the party to deposit the differential interest amount of Rs. 6,637/- (Rupees Six thousand six hundred and thirty seven only) and a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) under the aforesaid provisions. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 630 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Appeal - Remand - After finding that original authority passed a non-speaking ex-parte order, appellate authority should remand the matter, instead of disposing it of himself

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 629 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  SSI Exemption - Waste and scrap arising in course of manufacture of cycle parts exported and for which rebate granted in terms of Notification No. 41//2001-C.E. (N.T.)

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 628 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation (Central Excise) - Related person - Applicants have prima facie established that they sold goods not only to related persons but also to independent buyers at the same price

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 627 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation (Central Excise) - Soaps supplied to Ministry of Defence and not at all meant for retail sale

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 625 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Yarn - Taspa yarn - Classification of - Chemical examiner already given his opinion about absence of core yarn in their case

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 624 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Destruction of Cenvatted inputs (coke) by floods before inputs could be used in manufacture of final products

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 623 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Rebate - Supplementary invoices raised on foreign buyers - Held that: - A claim for the said amount cannot be denied on the ground that rebate is admissible only on the duty on the FOB value and not on the CIF value as long as the same represents the transaction value.

  In the instant case, there is no dispute that the entire amount of ₹ 16,10,23,430/- including the impugned amount of ₹ 4,50,13,457/- under supplementary invoices had been paid by the assessee as excise duty on the transaction value of the goods - That the ARE1 did not show the additional duty paid on the consignment subsequently cannot also be a reason to deny rebate of part of the duty paid later as per the contract with the assessee’s buyer. The exporter is entitled to rebate of the entire duty of excise paid by it on clearance of goods for export - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 621 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand and penalty - EOU, 100% EOU - Natural justice

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... vocate that the impugned order needs to be set aside and remand to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication, after taking into account the overall evidences available on record. If the statements of various persons are relied upon by the adjudicating authority, needless to say that appellants would be given an opportunity to test the veracity of the same through tool of cross-examination, especially when the appellants have been, prima facie, shown that the statements of some of the persons are not true reflection of the fact, when viewed against the documentary evidence available on record. 10. emsp With the above observations, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh decision. The appellants would be given opportunity to put forth their case. However, we make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 11. emsp All the stay petitions and appeals are disposed off in above manner. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 620 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Rebate

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... officers whose signatures were said to have been forged to save them. Commissioner has explained why this claim is not acceptable. It has also been found that the appellants were maintaining the ARE-1 register party wise but could not explain on what basis. The findings of the Commissioner shows serious omissions and lapses on the part of officers. The ld. Advocate stated that complete case is made on the basis of statement of the other two appellants who are beneficiaries of the rebate claim and lapse on the part of officers were only minor. We are not convinced of this argument and we feel that the three officers named above should be put to requirement of some amount of penalty as pre-deposit. Therefore, we direct that three officers namely Shri R.R. Meena, Shri Rakesh G. Agarwal and Shri Rajeev C. Nanda to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance on 24-2-2009. (Pronounced in the Court on 11th Dec. 2008)

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 619 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay/Dispensation of predeposit - Cenvat/Modvat

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... igh Court of Bombay. 5. emsp On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the amount of 10 demanded by the department in these cases is highly disproportionate to the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in the exempted product. For example, in a case where the Cenvat credit attributable is of the order of Rs. 2.5 lakh, the 10 of the amount turns up to be Rs. 160 lakh. The demand of such a-huge sum of money on the ground that no separate accounts were maintained cannot be justified, especially when there is reversal of the Cenvat credit attributable to the inputs used in the exempted products. Appellants prima facie have a very strong case in their favour on merits. Therefore, we order waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire dues demanded in the impugned orders till the appeals are decided. No coercive action should be taken till the disposal of the appeals. Appeals to come up for final hearing on 20th March 2009. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 616 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Cenvat/Modvat - burden to prove on department - inputs - duty paying invoices

  ---

12345........ 138