Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2021 2021 2021 (5) Central Excise - 2021 (5) 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 41 to 44 of 44 Records

• 2021 (5) TMI 41
  

  Excisability - repacking the tobacco products by scenting - process amounting to manufacture or not - HELD THAT:- In the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works vs. Commissioner [2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that manufacture and crushing betel nuts into smaller pieces and sweetening the same with essential/non-essential oils, menthol, sweetening agencies etc., did not result in manufacture of a new and distinct product having a different character and use as end product continues to retain its original character though in a modified form - the facts are entirely different and as far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the original character is not modified, then it need not be considered as a manufacturing, but in the present case such facts are to be decided only through complete adjudication by the competent authority and by the appellate authority.

  High Court is not an Expert Body in order to form an opinion with regard to the manufacturing of a product or otherwise. Experts in the Department must conduct an inspection and form an opinion, whether it is a manufacture of product or the raw material is just repacked and sold to the end user. The said nature of proceedings cannot be adjudicated before the High Court, as the scope of the writ proceedings are limited - Prima facie paragraph 13 of the affidavit reveals that some processes are involved in respect of the products sold by the writ petitioner to the end user in the society. All such details are to be adjudicated with reference to the product sold to the end user, the raw materials used and the processes undertook in this regard.

  The petitioner is at liberty to exhaust the appellate remedy in the manner known to law - Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 28
  

  CENVAT Credit - denial on the premise as per Notification No. 02/14-CE (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in law for the appellants to file invoices before the department in time. In these circumstances, As the assessee was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority although the Revenue has filed appeal against those orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, when the adjudicating authorities are having a divergent view, it is found that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the show cause notices have been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation.

  The demand against the appellants is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 25
  

  CENVAT Credit - input services - GTA services availed for transportation of goods from the factory to the customer’s premises - HELD THAT:- The issue stands covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/S. MRF LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST & CE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI [2019 (11) TMI 1607 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. Further, in page 8 of the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) has noted that appellants have included the freight charges in the assessable value and discharged excise duty on the same. In such circumstances, the appellants would be eligible to avail credit of the service tax paid on such freight charges for outward transportation of goods upto the buyer’s premises.

  Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2021 (5) TMI 24
  

  CENVAT Credit - eligibility to avail credit prior to the Notification No. 02/14 (N.T) dt. 20.01.2014 in terms of Notification No. 01/10-CE dt. 06.02.2010 - invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no provision in law for the appellant to file invoices before the department in time. In these circumstances, it is found that as the assessee was allowed credit by the adjudicating authority although the revenue has filed appeal against those orders before the Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, when the adjudicating authorities are having a divergent view, the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, in the case in hand, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

123