Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2016 2016 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 21 to 40 of 3528 Records

• 2016 (12) TMI 1683 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Penalty u/s 11AC - Default in monthly payment of duty - contravention of the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - this is not a case of clandestine removal or the case of non-payment or short payment of duty. Moreover, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant - Whatever default was made by the appellant that it is not amount to intentional evasion of duty particularly for the reason that they have disclosed the duty payable amount in their invoices as well as in the return - penalty set aside - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1680 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
  

  CENVAT/MODVAT credit - inputs used for making capital goods in the nature of M.S. Plates, M.S. Channels, M.S. Joists, etc. - main argument raised is that the user test has not been dealt with - Held that: - the Commissioner has specifically dealt with the functional usage of the various parts. User test as laid down in the Maruti Suzuki Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] only provides that the authority should be satisfied that the use of these inputs is necessary for erection of the whole or part of the plant and machinery, which is essential for manufacture of the end product.

  It is not disputed that the inputs like M.S. Angles, M.S. Plates, M.S. Joists and Channels were used for manufacturing of certain essential parts of the factory which are capital goods and since they are essential parts of the factory, they satisfy the twin tests of being capital goods as well as the user test.

  Credit rightly allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1679 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  SSI exemption - confiscation of goods on the ground that certain goods not covered by the exemption notification - Held that: - since the appellant is otherwise eligible for SSI exemption, they were not required to obtain any registration. One of the item was not excluded from the exemption notification however the appellant was of bona fide belief that there unit itself is exempted under SSI exemption. In our opinion bona fide belief cannot be doubted for the reason that except the aforesaid goods, all other goods were under exemption. Just because the exemption notification is not applicable on one particular product, the said goods lying within the factory should not be confiscated - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1674 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  CENVAT credit - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CESTAT, New Delhi was justified in law in allowing the refund of CENVAT Credit pertaining to the period prior to the registration of the respondent with the Department? - Held that: - There is complete finding of fact that at the time of the application of refund of Cenvat Credit the respondent was a registered provider and, therefore, the claim was justified - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1672 - SC ORDER
  

  CENVAT credit - goods manufactured out of common inputs without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Goyal Proteins Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 1321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that when the respondent-assessee had been furnishing regular returns on monthly basis disclosing therein about clearing goods manufactured out of common inputs without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty, then, there appears to be no suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1671 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Whether a manufacturer is entitled to claim the benefit and exemption from Central Excise duty on wind mill doors under Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 which grants exemption to wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts therefore including rotor wind turbine controller? - Held that: - the anchor rings and load spreading plates are parts of tower specially designed for wind operated electricity generators and are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1.3.2006 - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1664 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Validity of the Notification dated 27.03.2008 - jurisdiction - Held that: - the constitutional validity of the N/N. 21/2008 dated 27.03.2008 is in question and the same is pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Sikkim - the validity of the Notification dated 27.03.2008 can be decided only by the Hon’ble High Court and certainly, not by the Appellate Tribunal which has no power - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1660 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - cable tray - Held that: - the cable tray was used by the respondent within its factory for controlling damage to the electric cables which are used for uninterrupted transmission of power to the plant facilities - Since the cable tray is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product and the said goods are not falling within the exclusion category provided in the definition of input in Rule 2 (k) of the CCR, 2004 - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1653 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund claim - N/N. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 - denial on the ground that the machine purchased by the appellant is not covered under the exemption notification - Held that: - the machine is Cream Separator machine. It is clear that Latex Centrifuge testing appears to be testing equipment whereas cream separator machine is used in processing of the rubber. By any stretch of imagination, both the machineries are entirely different and cannot be treated as one - said machine i.e. cream separator machine is not covered under the exemption notification under Sr. No. 3(vi) of the List 32A of the Notification - refund rightly denied - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1650 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Interest on delayed refund - abatement during closure of the stenter - case of appellant is that even though they filed refund claim in January, 2000, but it was allowed to them in the year 2011. Therefore, they are eligible to interest which was not considered in the impugned order - Held that: - as the abatement claim was considered by the adjudicating authority pursuant to the Tribunal’s order and it was allowed by crediting their PLA account. Since they could not utilize the said PLA credit, the amount in cash was sanctioned within three months of their refund application - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1642 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - denial of credit on the ground that the respondent removed inputs, (Granulated Slag) as such, without reversal of credit - Held that: - the concerned officer was not aware about the removal of the duty paid inputs. In other words, the respondent should have declared the clearance of duty paid inputs in their returns specifically - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1640 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Short payment of duty - shortage of goods - road rollers - Held that: - the senior officials in their statement accepted the shortage of 8 Nos. of road rollers. Neither there is any cogent materials available on the record in support of the contention of the appellant, nor the senior officials explained the fact that the 8 Nos. of road rollers were lying in the factory - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1639 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Valuation - P & P Medicaments - It was alleged that the appellants had undervalued their physician's samples by determining its assessable value at transaction price u/s 4 instead of Section 4A of the CEA, 1944 - Board’s Circular No.643/34/2002-CX dated 01.07.2002 - Held that: - there are no material facts that the appellants deliberately or knowingly failed to discharge the duty liability - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has observed that the penalty u/s 11AC can be imposed for assessee’s act of deliberate deception with intent to evade duty by adopting any of the means in that Section.

  The appellant has made out a case for waiver of penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944 - Penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1636 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs - records maintained by First Stage Dealer - Held that: - the issue has already been decided in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax Versus M/s. Juhi Alloys Ltd., Anil Kumar Shukla [2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], where it was held that the assessee was a bona fide purchaser of the goods for a price which included the duty element and payment was made by cheque. The assessee had received the inputs which were entered in the statutory records maintained by the assessee - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1635 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  Clandestine removal - shortages and excesses of stock and finished goods - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that in the facts and circumstances, confiscation of seized goods is not proper as the goods were still lying in the factory premises, and there is no evidence of clandestine removal - cross examination of witnesses - natural justice - confiscation - penalty.

  Held that: - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have rightly held that there has been failure on the part of the Additional Commissioner to comply with the directions given by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the earlier gound of litigation. Also, Revenue have not been able to controvert that the witnesses were not the persons brought along with the search team. Under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, such witnesses have to be persons of repute staying in the near vicinity or the locality where the search or seizure takes place. Such provisions have been admittedly not followed.

  The proceedings are vitiated and the adverse conclusions drawn by the Additional Commissioner have been rightly held to be unsustainable by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1625 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT creidt - Input services - Rent-a-Cab service - Outdoor Catering service - Held that: - Service Tax paid in relation to Rent-a-Cab Service and out door catering service is covered under the scope of Input Services as defined under Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 as held by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid Essar Oil Ltd. [2015 (12) TMI 1062 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1622 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods and inputs - It was alleged that during the period 12/08/2008 to 30/11/2008, appellant No.1 removed the finished goods clandestinely, involving the amount of duty of ₹ 8,87,384/- under the cover of 48 challans recovered from the premises of the appellant company without payment of duty - Held that: - the appellants have not given any explanation in respect of recovery of 48 challans from their premises. The demand of duty on this issue is justified.

  Regarding the shortage of finished goods and inputs, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the shortage is 0.19% of the inputs and 0.39% of the finished goods, which is mere burning loss - the Director of the appellant company admitted the shortage of the stock and no explanation was given.

  Penalty - Held that: - the appellant No. 2 admitted in his statements of his knowledge of clandestine removal of the goods - imposition of penalty justified - however, quantum of penalty reduced to ₹ 50,000/-.

  Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1621 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - it was alleged that the final product manufactured by the respondent could not amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - There is an observation of the Adjudicating Authority on penalty that the respondent did not inform the department about the credit, but there is no malafide intention to evade the payment of Central Excise duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly observed that the finding of the Adjudicating Authority is contradictory and therefore, such adjudication order has no effect in the eye of law - matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1618 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - duty paid returned goods - it has been alleged in the SCN that the appellant failed to submit any documentary evidence of receipt and use of the returned goods in their factory and clearance of the resultant goods there from - Held that: - there is no requirement of maintenance of separate records for availing credit of the duty paid on the returned goods - Both the authorities below had not examined the documents placed by the appellant - remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide afresh after considering the documents and case laws - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (12) TMI 1617 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT credit - reversal of entire amount of proportionate credit against duty free removal of finished goods - Held that: - there is no clarity in the facts of the case as mentioned in the Adjudication Order and the evidences placed by the appellant - the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide after considering the submissions of the assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

123456........ 177