Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise SC Central Excise - SC This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions 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 ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 1841 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 and Decision etc.

• 2022 (12) TMI 453
  
  Valuation - sale made partly to related party and partly to independent party - incorrect method of valuing related party transactions or not - SCN issued by the Revenue noted that the CEVR did not contain any guidelines on the methodology to be adopted for discovering the assessable value of goods, when sales are made partially to both independent parties and related parties - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- The CBEC Circular of 01.07.2002 is binding on the Revenue. If the show cause notice issued by the Revenue is found to be contrary to the Circular, it would prima facie result in abrogation of the uniformity and consistency which is strongly emphasized upon in RANADEY MICRONUTRIENTS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1996 (9) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT]. It goes without saying that the Revenue’s stance against its own c....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (12) TMI 49
  
  Rejection of rebate claim - Period of limitation when no reference is given in the relevant Rule or Notification - applicability of time/limitation prescribed u/s 11B - HELD THAT:- It is required to be noted that Rule 18 of the 2002 Rules has been enacted in exercise of rule making powers under Section 37(xvi) of the Act. Section 37(xxiii) of the Act also provides that the Central Government may make the rules specifying the form and manner in which application for refund shall be made under section 11B of the Act. In exercise of the aforesaid powers, Rule 18 has been made and notification dated 6.9.2004 has been issued. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per Section 11B of the Act, an application has to be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Therefore, the application for rebate of duty has to be made in suc....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 580
  
  CENVAT Credit - removal of Cenvatted capital goods - Interpretation of statute - proviso added in 2007 to sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 to Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - clarificatory in nature or not - retrospective effect or not - whether in absence of said proviso the words “as such” appearing in sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 contemplated the removal of cenvated capital goods without use shall be the substantial question of law for adjudication in this appeal? HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant had used the goods in question in its factory at Goa from 1999 to 2004. As such, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Rule 57-S(2)(b) of 1944 Rules. It appears that though the said proviso to sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 existed in the 2002 Rules, by a legislature slip, it was not included in the 2004 Rules. As such, to clarify the position, an ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 579
  
  Exemption from Excise duty - imported paraffin/wax used by the Assessee in the process of manufacturing of cotton yarn - can be said to be a raw material or not - whether Assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 or not? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- So far as the issue whether the Assessee was entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997 is concerned, the same is squarely covered against the Assessee in view of the decision of this Court in the case of M/S. MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT] where this Court considered the very exemption notification and the use of wax in manufacturing of cotton yarn. After detailed analysis of the submissions made on behalf of the Revenue and Assessee and after con....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (10) TMI 468
  
  Classification of goods - heat pump - to be classified under heading 84.18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - under notification 155/86-CE dated 1.3.1986, heat pumps falling under Chapter 8418, enjoyed a limited exemption from the levy of excise duty - HELD THAT:- The definition of a product given in the HSN should be given due weightage in the classification of a product for the purpose of levying excise duty. This is because in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill leading to enactment of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, it was clearly stated that the pattern of tariff classification is broadly based on the system of classification derived from the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonised System) with such contraction or modification thereto as....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (9) TMI 740
  
  MODVAT Credit - Capital goods - Guide Car - classifiable under Chapter subheading 8603.00 or under Chapter sub-heading 8428.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or not - whether the appellant is entitled to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Rules 1944 on ‘Guide Cars’ treating the same as ‘components’ of Coke Oven Battery, as claimed? HELD THAT:- The test would be whether the ‘Guide Car’ can be said to be an integral part necessary to the constitution of the whole article, namely, Coke Oven Battery and whether without it, the Coke Oven Battery shall not be complete? Considering the process and the manner in which and/or for the purpose for which the ‘Guide Car’ is used, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be a ‘component’ of Coke Oven Battery. It cannot be said ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (9) TMI 269
  
  Refund of the excise duty on goods returned to factory - rejected goods, returned to it by its distributors, for which it had issued credit notes to the parties - Section 173L (v) of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- At the outset, it is required to be noted that after giving an opportunity to the assessee on the value of the returned goods and considering the material on record including the market survey report the Department determined the value of returned goods at Rs. 8 to 10 per kg. No cogent evidence was led by the assessee on the value of the returned goods. The assessee only produced the invoices with respect to secondary market. However, it is required to be noted that the value of the returned goods depend on the defects found in the manufactured goods which are returned. It varies considering the defects. In some returned g....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (8) TMI 642
  
  Validity and jurisdiction to adjudicate the subsequent SCN - Order-in-Original passed in proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice are ordered to be revived and to be transferred to the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi for decision with the proceedings initiated pursuant to the first show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that both the show cause notices - one dated 1-3-2016 issued by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit and the subsequent show cause notice dated 23-10-2017 issued by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Alwar were on the same subject - matter, the High Court is justified in passing the impugned judgment and order and directing that both the notices to be adjudicated....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (7) TMI 1241
  
  Seeking rectification of the order - application was filed on the ground that while passing the order dated 30th October 2012, the CESTAT did not notice the fact that the application filed by the present appellant was pending before the Committee of Disputes - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The second application was filed before the CoD on 11th February 2011. In the meantime, the judgment of this Court in the case of ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2011 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] was delivered on 17th February 2011, which has done away with the mechanism seeking permission of CoD. As such, the second application of the appellant could not be considered by the CoD. The question of interest, therefore, has not been addressed by any of the authorities. The matter is remitted to the CESTAT for consideration of the limited aspect of interest on duty - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2022 (4) TMI 829
  
  Maintainability of revenue appeal - Inappropriateness of the direction given in the circular issued by the Department to follow regime of call-book - threshold monetary limit - Circular No. 17/2019 (F. No. 279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt.), dated 8th August, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The assessee can raise grounds independent of that contention. But if the assessee chooses to raise ground regarding call-book regime, that contention must await the outcome of the proceedings pending before this Court in the connected cases listed today. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority ought to proceed with the appeal keeping in mind the aforementioned observation and on its own merits in accordance with law. Further, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal uninfluenced by the finding or observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order, including on the merits of the contention. Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (4) TMI 828
  
  Extended period of limitation - appellant has submitted that one another issue with respect to extended period of limitation and the consequential penalty was raised before the Tribunal which has not been dealt with by the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- For the issue, namely, whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked or not and the consequential penalty, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant are relegated to file a review application before the Tribunal and if such a review application is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the same be entertained and the Learned Tribunal to take appropriate decision on the same in accordance with law and on its own merits. Appeal stands dismissed/disposed of.

  ---

• 2022 (4) TMI 733
  
  Valuation of Central Excise Duty - argument of the appellant is that the mandate of Section 4A(2) obligates the taxing authority to assess the excise duty only in reference to the market selling price printed on the packing of the product - HELD THAT:- The submission of argument clearly overlooks the purport of expression “retail sale price” occurring in Section 4A. The non-obstante clause in Section 4A(2) will have to be construed in the context of the meaning of the expression “retail sale price” as elaborated in explanation (1). Taking that into account, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal needs no interference. Hence, the civil appeals are dismissed. Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (4) TMI 732
  
  Classification of goods - Light Oils and Preparations - HELD THAT:- In the present case, even as per the Chemical Examiner’s Report, the range of distillation of the product in question was between 35 degree to 58 degree Celsius which is much below 210 degree Celsius and the word used in sub-heading notes referred to herein above is “at” and not “up to” - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (2) TMI 1171
  
  Confiscation of land, buildings etc. - invocation of powers under Rule 173(Q)(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on 26.03.2007 and 29.03.2007 for confiscation of land, buildings etc., when on such date, the rule 173Q(2) was not on the Statue Book having been omitted w.e.f. 17.05.2000 - in absence of provisions providing for First Charge in relation to Central Excise dues in the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not, whether the dues of the Excise department would have priority over the dues of the Secured Creditors or not? - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Ghaziabad vide order dt. 26.03.2007, ordered the confiscation of all the land, building, plant, machinery etc. of RIL. This confiscation order was passed under rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, in the impugned order, the High Court has not conside....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (1) TMI 615
  
  Refund of education cess and higher education cess - whether the education cess and higher education cess which were paid along with the excise duty was also liable to be refunded along with the central excise duty in terms of exemption notifications? - HELD THAT:- Whereas it is the case of the applicant that issue is covered in view of the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. [1986 (8) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT] which is rendered by three-Judge Bench of this Court, which is followed in the case of M/s. Unicorn Industries [2019 (12) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT ] by this Court, on the very same issue in this batch of appeals this Court has held that when the duty is exempted the cess which is notified by subsequent Finance Act which is leviable on excise duty also stands exempted. In view of the fact that the earlier jud....... + More

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 988
  
  Vires of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules as ultra vires to the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- It is true that, the High Court has observed that, in the facts of the case, challenge to the vires of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules is rather without substance, however, the High Court has not at all addressed the issue on vires on merits in detail. The question of vires cannot be decided by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal in an appeal against the order-in-original. Under the circumstances, the High Court has not at all addressed on merits on the question with respect to vires of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for its fresh decision - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 987
  
  Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - different Commissionerate was being established and in that process inefficiency occurred - remedy to file an appeal within a particular time limit - HELD THAT:- We consider this hardly a proper justification except that it is a result of inefficiency of the working of the Department and lack of knowledge of legal remedy. Since some similar matters are stated to be pending consideration, we are inclined to condone the delay, subject to deposit of ₹ 10,000/- as costs in each of the special leave petitions with the Supreme Court Group ‘C’ (Non-Clerical Employees Welfare Association) within three weeks. The applications for condonation of delay are accordingly allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (10) TMI 892
  
  Demand u/s 11D - Collection of amount in the name of duty - Cash recovery of Money Credit Scheme - applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Much emphasis was placed on the last sentence appearing in the said circular, which predicates that the manufacturer is utilized to pay duty on any finished excisable product and which duty is collected from the buyer. This expression, though, wide enough but cannot travel beyond Section 11D of the Act and in reference to the Board Circular Bearing No. 216/50/96-CS, dated 4-6-1996, referred to in the stated circular dated 7-8-2002. Besides this, nothing more is required to be said. The claim set up in the Writ Petition, therefore, has been rightly negated by the High Court. SLP disposed off.

  ---

• 2021 (8) TMI 1075
  
  Evasion of duty - levy of penalty - secured creditor and the debts were transferred to the respondent Bank - HELD THAT:- It is not possible for the appellant to plead that they have crown debt which would take precedence over a secured liability and fairly, the learned Additional Solicitor General does not even seek to contend it - there is no need to go into other issues sought to be raised by either of the parties before us or through the impugned judgment but suffice to say that the respondent Bank cannot be prevented from exercising its rights as a secured creditor on the pretext that there is a debt to the Excise Department arising from the confiscation order dated 25.02.2006. On realization of the dues of the Bank, if amounts are still left, those amounts can be utilized to satisfy the dues of the Excise Department and naturally, if there are still amounts left, the debtor would be the beneficiary of the same - Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (6) TMI 517
  
  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.

  ---

12345........ 93