Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (10) Central Excise - 2008 (10) 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 181 to 190 of 190 Records

• 2008 (10) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN
  

  Tribunal held the assessee entitled to remission of excise duty - Tribunal had independently recorded its satisfaction about the loss/destruction having been sustained by the assessee under the circumstances as covered by Rule 21 – merely because the Tribunal also relied upon the accounting policy of assessee, would not in any manner vitiate the finding of Tribunal. The finding remains the findings of fact - Expression ‘natural causes’ & ‘unavoidable accident’ should be given liberal meaning

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 60 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Whether theft or dacoity would be unavoidable accident within the meaning of Rule 49 of CER so as to merit remission of excise duty on the goods so lost - Theft/dacoity are not a natural cause – therefore, held that ‘theft’ or ‘dacoity’ cannot be called unavoidable accident within the meaning of the Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the goods lost in theft or dacoity would not be eligible for remission

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Whether, a manufacturer of final product, who procured inputs and availed MODVAT credit thereon, was entitled to remove the inputs as such, without reversal of the credit or payment of equivalent amount of duty, to a 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate in terms of Notification No. 1/95 – Held, no – because CT-3 certificate is valid only for procurement of goods manufactured by supplying units – held that inputs can only be cleared either on payment of duty or exported under bond

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Clandestine removal by adopting the modus operandi like issuance of invoices of lesser quantity and removal of scrap without payment of duty by not issuing any Central Excise document - it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to file an application to adduce additional evidence before the tribunal, which was not done by appellant – tribunal was justified in rejecting affidavit filed by appellant, and confirming the order of lower authority on basis of statement of factory manager

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 54 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Credit taken and utilized correctly when final product was dutiable – whether credit is required to be reversed when the said final product subsequently becomes exempt – whether such credit can be recovered by revenue - hold that when the input-credit legally taken and utilised on the dutiable final products, need not be reversed on the final product becoming exempt subsequently unless specific provision exist therefor

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that “Connector fitted with wire” is classifiable under SH 8544.00 of the First Schedule to Tariff – held that connectors fitted with wire still remain as connectors and it cannot be equated with wire or cable – order of tribunal is not justified – classification should be determined on basis of terms of heading - Commissioner (Appeals) rightly classified the connectors with wire under Heading No. 8536.90 – revenue’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 51 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Interpretation of the expression “as such” appearing in Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR – removal of capital goods for repair – held that expression “as such” doesn’t have any connection with capital goods being new, unused or used - expression “as such” should be understood without any alteration - held that even used capital goods were covered by expression “as such” occurring in Rules 3(4)(c) and 4(5)(a) – therefore, reversal of credit is required when capital goods are removed, whether used or not

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether goods obtained in the process of dismantling of a ship such as angles, plates, rounds and heavy steel pipes etc. would constitute “manufacture” - In such cases of technical nature, particularly when ship breaking involves expertise, the Adjudicating Authority was required examine in detail the process by which the breaking of the ship takes place - matters are being remitted so that Adjudicating Authority

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether cutting and slitting of steel sheets of polyester films used for lamination purposes amounts to manufacture – exigibility - Circular no. 584/21/2001 dated 7-9-01 took the view that the processes in question amounts to manufacture – but subsequent Circular no. 811/8/2005 dated 2-3-05 withdraws the earlier Circular dated7-9-01 – hence there is no merit in contention of revenue that process amounts to manufacture – Board’s circular is binding on revenue – revenue’s appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Board Circular not to prevail over Supreme Court Order - It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law - a revenue authority is eligible to challenge the validity of a circular. Para 9 of Dhiren Chemical case was being misunderstood.

  ---

1 ....678910