Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1816 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2021 (6) TMI 517 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods - industrial chemical ‘Sikko Sol’ - classifiable under sub-head No. 2710 1213 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985 or otherwise? - period from 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2015 - HELD THAT:- A notice was issued under Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 on 02.02.2021, for initiation of process of recovery. On 22.02.2021, the raw material/finished goods, movable and immovable properties were attached. Plant and machinery was also attached - it is deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice to restore the appeal before the CESTAT which shall be decided on its own merits. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that it shall neither alienate movable or immovable property nor create third party rights - The respondents are directed to defreeze the bank accounts and the petitioner shall undertake to utilize it only for the purpose of his business - SLP disposed off.
- 2021 (3) TMI 291 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods - Relays manufactured by the appellant used only as Railway signaling equipment - fall under Chapter 86, Tariff Item 8608 as claimed by the appellant or under Chapter 85 Tariff Item No.8536.90 as claimed by the Department? - time limitation of SCN - absence of any fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts, especially since the classification list submitted by the appellant have been approved on 27.08.1993 - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act,1944. Classification of Relays - HELD THAT:- What is recognized in Note 3 can be called the “suitability for use test” or ‘the user test’. While the exclusion under Note 2(f) may be of goods which are capable of being marketed independently as electrical machinery or equipment, for use otherwise than in or as Railway signaling equ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 726 - SUPREME COURT
Interest on refund claim - Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - interest denied on the finding that the adjudication of the claim attained finality only after dismissal of the proceedings before the High Court on 18-7-2005; whereas the Department had already paid refund amount to the appellant on 26-6-2005 - Circular No. 670/61/2002-CX.8, dated 1-10-2002 - HELD THAT:- The approval of the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in JK. CEMENT WORKS VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS [2004 (2) TMI 78 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], which directly deals with the claim of the appellant before this Court who had made application for refund on 30-12-1999 and, therefore, the statutory interest ought to commence after non-payment within three months from the date of application, being the starting point envisaged by Section 1....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT
100% EOU - Exemption from payment of Customs Duty and Excise Duty - sale to DTA - production and export of cut flowers and flower buds of all kinds, suitable for bouquets and for ornamental purposes - benefit of N/N. 126/94Cus dated 3.6.1994 - thrust of the argument of the appellant is that according to Paragraph 3 of the exemption notification, sales made in DTA would attract excise duty and since the cut flowers sold by the appellant are non-excisable goods, no excise duty can be levied upon it - it is also contended that since the cut flowers are home grown, customs duty cannot be levied upon them and therefore, the demand of customs duty cannot be sustained. Whether customs duty can be charged on the non-excisable goods produced in India and sold in DTA by an EOU? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the notification provides for exempt....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation of excisable goods - Amendment to Section 4 - change from Normal value to Transaction value - allegations that assessees in these cases allegedly undervalued the goods, sold them for a much higher price than what was reflected in the invoices and thereby they evaded the excise duty actually payable. - period of assessment was both prior to and after 01.07.2000 and in other cases, the period was after 01.07.2000 HELD THAT:- The Adjudicating Authorities as well as CESTAT are also guilty of failure to do something in these batches of cases - Since the Adjudicating Authorities as well as the CESTAT failed to make various determination, the orders of remand passed by the Tribunal, though for completely different reasons, were justified - Hence the appeals are liable to be disposed of, confirming the orders of remand passed by CESTAT,....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods - car matting - classified within Chapter 57 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 under the heading “Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings” or they would be classified under Chapter 87 thereof, which relates to “Vehicles other than Railway or Tramway Rolling-Stock and Parts and Accessories Thereof”? HELD THAT:- Three cases have been decided by the Tribunal in COLLECTOR OF C. EX., BOMBAY-II VERSUS STERLING INDIA [1999 (7) TMI 704 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS SWARAJ MAZDA [1993 (7) TMI 186 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], and JYOTI CARPET INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I [2001 (4) TMI 316 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] which obviously has no precedent value for us - We however, discussed these cases only for the purpose of ascertaining ....... + More
- 2020 (4) TMI 669 - SUPREME COURT
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - withdrawal of scheme for revival of economy in Kutch District - Withdrawal of the benefit/incentive scheme to the original writ petitioners - retrospective or retroactive? - effect of subsequent N/N. 16/2008 dated 27.03.2008 - It was the case of the original writ petitioners that the subsequent notification No. 16/2008-CE changed the entire basis of the incentive exemption and had the effect of substantially reducing their entitlement of refund. It was also the case on behalf of the original writ petitioners that as a result of the said amendment which resulted in their entitlement for refund being reduced from nearly 100% of the duty paid to only 34% of such duty amount. According to the original writ petitioners, since the promised incentive was curtailed midway before the expiry of the five years perio....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT
100% EOU - allegation that they were doing job work in violation of Exim policy - quantum of sale made to DTA unit - debonding - conversion of raw material supplied by M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. - transfer of Manganese Ore by TISCO to UFAC for the purposes of processing the same and converting it into Silicon Manganese - sale and purchase - case of Revenue is that since in the transaction between UFAC and TISCO there is no transfer of property in goods, the same cannot be termed as ‘sale’ and therefore would not be covered under paragraph 9.9 (b) of the EXIM Policy - HELD THAT:- The perusal of the definition makes it clear that when there is a transfer of possession of goods in the ordinary course of trade or business either for cash or for deferred payment or any other valuable consideration, the same would be cov....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1307 - SUPREME COURT
Area Based Exemption - exemption form levy of Central Excise - inclusion of certain Khasra Nos. of Village Ratanpura, Bajpura, Udham Singh Nagar so as to constitute a notified independent industrial area in order to avail of the exemption - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is completely beyond the scope of the High Court's power under the Constitution of India or any other law. The High Court did not have the power to set up a Committee and invested it with judicial powers. No Court of law can delegate its judicial function to any other authority. In our view, the order amounts to an obliteration to the functioning of the High Court. The direction is plainly unconstitutional and whimsical - We, accordingly, set aside the said order and dismiss the writ petitions. Petition dismissed.
- 2019 (12) TMI 552 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Rule 5 of CER - Whether an assessee who chooses once to pay duty in terms of Rule 96-ZP(3) can be compelled to pay duty calculated in accordance with the said Rule for all times to come without any regard to the actual production is a question which requires examination? HELD THAT:- The question posed before us did not arise at all on facts and the question which has been referred is not something which the assessee disputes. The matter is sent back to a Division Bench to decide the questions stated in para 20 of Bhuwalka Steel Industries Limited and Another [2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURT].
- 2019 (12) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - captive consumption - provisional assessment - Order was not passed stated that it was a provisional assessment order - applicability of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - time limitation - Could the respondent authorities have ignored the binding directions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi to hold that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was required in the present case as the assessments in question were provisional? HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the appellant voluntarily furnished requisite bonds in Form B-13 referable to Rule 9B supported by bank guarantee for equivalent amount of the differential duty. It is not an undertaking filed pursuant to the order of the Court. Concededly, the order disposing of the writ petitions does not absolve the appellant from the said bonds; nor the endorsements made thereon an....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 430 - SUPREME COURT
CENVAT Credit - input - fuel - Restriction / Reversal of credit under rule 6 - Scope and interpretation of rule 6(1) and rule 6(2) - Low Sulphur Heavy Stock - case of assessee is that they are entitled to claim CENVAT credit on the input, that is, LSHS even though fertilizer is exempt from excise duty - HELD THAT:- When Rule 6(1) says that the CENVAT Credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods, it relies upon the definition of “inputs” contained in these Rules which certainly include LSHS and steam and electricity that are produced in the manufacturing process utilizing LSHS. The exception that is contained in sub-rule (2) refers to all inputs except inputs intended to be used as fuel which then results in the manufacture of final products which are both chargeable ....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT
Area based exemption - Recovery of refund of Refund of NCCD on the ground that exemption was not permissible under the notification for the units located in the State of Sikkim - Binding nature of Circular issued by the CBEC (CBIC) - appellant submitted that NCCD, education cess, and secondary and higher education cess form part of the excise duty - manufacture of Indian Mouth Freshener - Levy of education cess, higher education cess, and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) - Notification dated 17.2.2003 - N/N. 71/2003 dated 9.9.2003 HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that when initial exemption notification was issued in 1997 for the North-Eastern States, which was later on applied to the State of Sikkim on 9.9.2003. The benefits from payment of excise duty and additional excise duty were confined to the basic excise duty payable unde....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- Considering the low tax effect, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. However, as arguable question has been raised in this appeal, we partly allow this appeal by setting aside the amount payable towards penalty and interest provided the appellant deposits the excise amount with the Authority within six weeks from today, failing which the order passed by the Authority shall get revived. Appeal allowed in part.
- 2019 (11) TMI 1372 - SUPREME COURT
Maintainability of appeal - CENVAT credit - input services - place of removal - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The High Court ought to have analyzed the relevant facts and contentions raised in the subject appeal(s) on its own merit and ought not to have disposed of the same by a general observation, as is noticed from the analysis in the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment set aside - the appeal(s) are restored to the file of the High Court to its original number, for being considered afresh in accordance with law.
- 2019 (11) TMI 834 - SUPREME COURT
Conviction of offences - offence punishable under Section 9(1)(ii) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The ends of justice would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant of two months with fine of ₹ 1 lakh is substituted by sentence of fine for ₹ 3.5 lakhs. The amount of Rs. One lakh as ordered by the High Court has already been paid - The amount of ₹ 2.5 lakhs so deposited in the Registry shall now be appropriated towards fine and shall be made over to the Department - appeal disposed off.
- 2019 (11) TMI 673 - SUPREME COURT
Scope of SCN - Manufacturing activity taking place or not - Respondent manufactured Foots Oil, Pressed Wax, Pressed Paraffin Wax without observing the mandatory procedure and clearing Excise Duty - demand of Central Excise duty under the extended proviso to Section 11A of the said Act - interest under Section 11 AB of the said Act - recovery of duty - scope of SCN. HELD THAT:- Section 11A deals with various facets including non-levy and non-payment of excise duty and contemplates issuance of a show cause notice by the Central Excise Officer requiring the “person chargeable with duty” to show cause why “he should not pay the amount specified in the notice.” In terms of sub-section 10 of said Section 11A, the concerned person has to be afforded opportunity of being heard and after considering his representation, if a....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - withdrawal of exemption N/N. 71 of 2003 dated 09.09.2003 - Exemption from duty of excise or additional duty of excise, as the case may be, leviable thereon under any of the said Acts as was equivalent to the amount of duty paid by the manufacturer of the said goods, other than the amount of duty paid by utilisation of CENVAT credit under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 - whether, by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel, can the Union of India be estopped from withdrawing the exemption from payment of Excise Duty in respect of certain products, which exemption is granted by an earlier notification; when the Union of India finds that such a withdrawal is necessary in the public interest? HELD THAT:- This Court in a catena of decisions has considered the issue with regard to inapplicability of the doct....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1297 - SUPREME COURT
Recall of order - Valuation - correctness of ex-factory price - Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules 1944 - HELD THAT:- The basis on which the CESTAT has taken a decision, namely, the earlier order of the CESTAT dated 3 December 2009 is flawed since the order relied on has been recalled. The proceedings are remanded back to the CESTAT in view of the inadvertent error which has cropped up in the impugned judgment and order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (6) TMI 954 - SUPREME COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC of CEA - period from 1-4-1994 to 16-1-1997 - whether the penalty could also be imposed under the aforesaid provision for the period prior to 28-9-1996 inasmuch as Section 11AC of the Act under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, was brought on the statute book by amendment only w.e.f. 28-9-1996? - HELD THAT:- It is held by the High Court itself in the impugned judgment that Section 11AC is prospective in nature. In spite of that the High Court has upheld the penalty imposed by the appellant for the entire period including the period prior to 28-9-1996 - We are of the opinion that here the High Court clearly fell into error. Undoubtedly, Section 11AC is a penal provision. Once it is held to be prospective in nature, it becomes effective only from the date it was brought into force i.e. 28-9-1996. Therefore, no pe....... + More