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 161 to 180 of 2754 Records

• 2008 (12) TMI 182 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund of pre-deposit – Held that bar of unjust enrichment will apply to the case of pre-deposit also

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 178 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Cenvat Credit – Rule 6 – The respondents are manufacturers of pumps and valves and they were paying duty equivalent to 8% of the value of the clearances under exemption Notification No.10/97. As per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the appropriate duty to be paid is 10.2% on the assessable value on the clearances made under Notification No.10/97. Proceedings were initiated against the respondents for differential duty – held that the non-payment of duty has arisen at the time of budgetary changes. There is no finding in the impugned order that such non-payment was deliberate with an intention to evade Central Excise duty. The respondent had already discharged duty liability along with interest. There is absolutely no justification for imposing equal penalty under Rule 25. The Commissioner (A) has passed a correct order appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 177 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Valuation – Inclusion / exclusion of freight charges - appellants were clearing their manufactured goods and delivering the same to their customers as per the requirements of the customer and were charging transportation charges separately from the buyers. It is their contention that since the actual freight amount was not known at the time of clearing the goods, an approximate amount was indicated in the invoice separately over and above the price charged for the goods. In some cases, it so happened that the freight amount indicated in the invoice turned out to be more than the actual freight paid by them to the transporter and in such cases, they were paying duty on the differential amount so recovered from the customers – Held that - the deduction of freight cannot be denied and duty cannot be demanded on the entire amount of freight. The Com missioner (Appeals)’s order is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 167 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Goods destroyed in Fire – Remission of Duty - After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides, it is found that Commissioner rendered a finding that the fire accidents in the instant case could have been avoided had the assessee been careful is not reasonable or supported by facts of the accidents. Nobody invites loss of property due to accident by choosing to be careless. Accidents, especially, fire accidents occur despite all caution and care taken by people. - As the relevant rule empowers the Commissioner to grant the remission of duty due on excisable goods destroyed in unavoidable accidents, the appellants eminently deserve relief provided in the rule in view of the facts of the case. The appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 166 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Duty Liability of a registered dealer - There is no dispute by the revenue that the present appellant is a registered dealer. We are unable to notice whether the registered dealer was by any means liable to pay duty when he is not a manufacturer. We also fail to understand that an assessee who is a registered dealer and not liable to be dealt by Section 11D of the Act how he is made liable under such provision. – Held that the appellant being a public sector undertaking cannot be held to be liable. Therefore, we hold that the levy imposed on the appellant is unsustainable. Accordingly, appeal of the appellant is allowed.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 165 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty – Penalty of Clandestine removal - The appellants had failed to establish with documentary evidence that goods seized as well as the goods found to have been clandestinely cleared earlier had been manufactured by SAP as a job worker. As no valid challenge has been raised against the duty demanded, a penalty equal to the same is imposable on the assessee - Penalty on Driver - A driver in-charge of a vehicle transporting goods from one place to another is expected to be conversant with the formalities he has to follow in respect of the goods in transit as regards various laws such as the Sales Tax Act, Central Excise Act etc - The owner of the vehicle was found liable to a fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed in this regard and the driver, a penalty of Rs. 2000/- imposed on him.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 164 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Delay in filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) – Delay of 16 days – Power to condone the delay - . The fact that the concerned person had fallen ill just two days before normal period of filing the appeal expired strengthened his suspicion. There is no categorical evidence to find that the claim of the appellants as regards the cause for the same was genuine or manipulated. In the instant case the appeal was filed with delay of 16 days beyond 60 days period prescribed. The Commissioner (Appeals) is competent to condone this delay on sufficient case being shown. The appellant claimed that the person incharge of Excise was ill and had been under treatment in hospital during the period when the appeal could have been filed without delay. This claim has been canvassed on the strength of a discharge summary of the hospital concerned. The appeal is allowed and the matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 158 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat Credit – Bogus Invoices – Non receipt of Inputs –the vehicle numbers mentioned on the invoices were either found to be two wheelers or three wheelers etc. i.e. of the vehicles not capable of transporting such quantity of steel products or of trucks, whose owners denied to have transported any goods for - at the time of the officer’s visit to premises while the RG-23 Register was showing some stock, on physical verification, no stock was found in their approved godown - No GRs or bilties were produced - All these circumstances indicate that these were only the paper transactions not involving any actual sale of the goods – Held that credit is not allowed.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Revocation of central excise registration certificate – the appellate authority only leaned on the observations of the Registering Authority and has not examined whether the land was vested with the appellant for doing construction thereon. – held that it would be proper on the part of the relevant Assessing Authority to enquire from the Land Allotment Authority as to the status of the appellant with regard to the right to construction over the land so as to carry out the purpose of allotment of land. Once that Authority satisfies as to the vesting of the right of the appellant to use the land in the manner required by the Allotment Authority, the registering authority is free to restore the registration and also grant consequential relief to the appellant as that may be called for under the law.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Order of Full Bench - Whether in the light of section 29(2) of Limitation Act, 1963, in any appeal filed under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 and / or under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 High Court is empowered under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay - held that section 5 of Limitation Act will be applicable to appeals filed under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - when a statute is silent, the presumption is not drawn automatically about the exclusion of section 29(2) or for that matter section 5 of the Limitation Act - Hence the appeals stand restored to file - The notices of motion for condonation of delay be placed before appropriate Division (Bench) for consideration in accordance with law on its own merit.

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 139 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Includibility of installation and maintenance charges – contract entered into between assessee and Mahanagar Telephone although was a composite contract, there was clear divisibility of supply and service, by a thorough reading of the purchase order – therefore, impugned charges are not includible – in respect of demand raised on ground that bought out items also manufactured and supplied with computers manufactured, demand is confirmed in absence of any evidence adduced by the assessee to show that those were distinctly supplied goods without being integral part of computer system

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 138 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Includibility of amortization cost of the moulds/dies supplied by buyer/customer free of cost in the assessable value of the excisable goods manufactured – there were conflicting judgments on the issue – matter resolved by Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mutual Industries Ltd. holding that the proportionate cost of moulds, supplied free by the customer is includible – assessee is willing to make the payment of the balance duty - accordingly respondents is directed to make the payment of balance duty together with interest - no intention to evade duty – however, it is not a fit case for penalty u/s 11AC

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 136 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules - From the reading of Rule 26, it is clear that the penalty prescribed under this rule is an amount not exceeding the duty involved or Rs. 10,000/- whichever is greater - what is prescribed in the Rules is upper limit of penalty and within that upper limit, the adjudicating authority has discretion to determine the quantum of penalty - there is no provision in this rule that penalty cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/- - therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- is justified

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 129 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Cost of design and drawings supplied by manufacturer to component vendors - Department’s case is that the cost of such drawings and designs involved in the manufacture of the said components, should be included in the assessable value of the components manufactured by the vendors – in view of Explanation 1 to the said Rule 6 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, department’s claim accepted – however, practice of supplying such drawings and taking credit of duty paid on components accepted by department for long time, duty short paid is not due to suppression, so larger period not invocable

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 128 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund of interest paid at the time of finalization of the provisional assessment - Relevant date for interest - In the case of provisional assessment under the Central Excise Rules, 2002, interest is required to be paid from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which such amount is determined – therefore, held that, assessee correctly paid the interest and not entitled to refund – assessee’s contention that there is no challenge in the ‘Grounds of Appeal’ of the Revenue on merit and hence the orders of the lower authorities below need to be upheld, not acceptable

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 127 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Issue of using brand name of foreign collaborator – controversy settled by LB in the case of M/s. Namtech Systems Ltd. against the appellant – in impugned case for period prior to settlement of controversy, there was no malafide on part of appellant of using foreign collaborator’s name, so entitled to benefit of SSI exemption – demand on ground appellant they have supplied pumps for handling chemicals to their customers, under the guise of pumps for handling water – matter remanded in this context for verification of comparative chart produced by appellant showing the total clearance and for re-quantification of the demand

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 126 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Credit of service tax paid on Group Mediclaim Policy and Workmen’s Accident Policy taken by the manufacturer for its workers - held that any expenses which form part of the manufacturing cost as per format prescribed in CAS-4 statement shall be allowable as credit. Since in para 5.2 of CAS-4, medical benefits are included, dispute in the present case is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision vide order No. M/217-218/08/SMB/C-I/LB dated 25-9-08 - no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue and accordingly dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Non-maintenance of separate accounts - Denial of credit of duty on the inputs which go into manufacture of dutiable as well as the exempted medicines and also on the inputs which are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted medicine - Since the goods, in question, are exempted goods and have been exported, the provisions of sub-rule 5 become applicable and therefore, neither sub-rule 1 would be applicable nor sub-rule 2 & 3 of Rule 6, would be applicable – credit allowed - assessee’s appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 116 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Review by Committee of Chief Commissioners, without authorization – review order passed is contrary to notification 24/05 C.E. (N.T.) – appointment of public authorities through official journal called Gazette is mandatory and failure to do so is incurable – impugned review order having no locus standi, therefore revenue’s appeal is dismissed – further, Tribunal being a creature of the Statute it cannot ignore the statutory mandate of compliance of Section 35B(2) of the Act nor it can direct the authorities to dispense with the compliance to the said provision - Tribunal cannot sanction action of the authorities who have acted in defiance of the law and the Chief Commissioners not appointed in accordance with the mandate of the Statute

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 115 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Classification of “potpourris” - decorative floral arrangements meant to add or create exquisite beauty to a room or a place - their visual appeal can in no way be masked by the fragrance which is added to the “dried flowers and parts of plants” – Revenue only submits that the addition of fragrance takes them out of Heading 06.03/06.04 – term “otherwise prepared” in CTH Heading 6 is wide enough to cover the process of addition of aromatic oils or perfumes and as long as they continue to retain their character and shape, they will fall for classification only u/ch 6 – When specific entry namely Heading 06.03/06.04, they cannot be relegated to the residuary entry i.e. Heading 33.7 – potpourris are classifiable u/ch 6 of the CTA, 1975. Equivalent heading in the CET is Chapter 6 which is blank. Hence they are non-excisable

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 138