Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2022 2022 2022 (11) Central Excise - 2022 (11) 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 81 to 83 of 83 Records

• 2022 (11) TMI 41 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Recovery of short paid duty - supplies to Government Hospitals and Institutional Buyers - method of valuation - to be valued under Section 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or under Section 4A of CEA? - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant have supplied Medicament to Government Hospitals and Some Institutional Buyers. In case of such nature of transaction the medicaments are not sold in retail, therefore, retail sale price need not to be affixed. It is the submission of the appellant that they have not affixed retail sale price on such medicament and it is also mentioned on the package of the Medicament that “it is not for a retail sale” and it is for use by Government Hospitals and Some Institutional Buyers. In this fact the medicaments are not sold in retail and the retail sale price need not to be affixed. Consequently, the valuation of the said goods cannot be insisted upon under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

  This bench in the case of in the case of Zydus Healthcare Ltd [2019 (10) TMI 810 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] under the same set of facts held that valuation of Medicament Supplied to Government Hospitals/ Institutional Buyers shall be governed by Section 4 and not Section 4A.

  This Tribunal has already taken a consistent view that the Medicament Supplies to Government Hospitals and Institutional Buyers shall be valued in terms of Section 4 and not Section 4 (A). Therefore, the issue is no longer res integra - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 40 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT Credit - common inputs used in manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods - demand @ 8% of the value of exempted goods proposed in terms of Rule 57 AD(2)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1994 and and rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and 2004 - HELD THAT:- The provision of erstwhile Rule 57 AD of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004 clearly stipulates that the cenvat credit in respect of input used in the manufacture of exempted final product is not admissible. It is also found that the entire objective of allowing the cenvat credit is to avoid the cascading effect of duty on the final product. When the final product is not dutiable, there is no reason to allow the cenvat credit on the inputs used in such final products. Therefore, the adjudication order is absolutely proper and legal, which does not require any interference.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (11) TMI 39 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Recovery of dues - existence of dues as per the resolution plan approved by NCLT or not - HELD THAT:- From the terms of the resolution plan approved by the NCLT, it prima facie appears that the appellant is not liable to pay any dues. However, this tribunal is not competent to decide regarding the recovery of any dues. It is the department who has to decide whether any dues is recoverable or otherwise, in the light of the resolution plan approved by the NCLT.

  As per the resolution plan approved by the NCLT and in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of GHANASHYAM MISHRA AND SONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY VERSUS EDELWEISS ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH THE DIRECTOR & ORS. [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT], it prima facie appears that the adjudged dues cannot be recovered by the department however, this issue has to be decided by the department and not by this tribunal. For this reason, that firstly, there is no provision made in the Customs and Central Excise Act to give effect of NCLT proceedings. This tribunal being creature under the Customs Act, even though the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have over riding effect over all the other acts, in absence of any explicit provision under the Customs/Central Excise Act, this tribunal cannot decide finally whether the adjudged amount can be recovered by the department or otherwise. This issue has to be resolved by the respondent.

  The appeals became infructuous and is dismissed - the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs may consider issuing guideline/procedure for dealing with the case before this tribunal wherein, against the assesse’s company IBC proceeding has been initiated.

  ---

12345