Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise Tri Central Excise - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 52554 Records

  • 2017 (8) TMI 786 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai And Vice-Versa

    CENVAT credit - packing material - The main allegation in the show cause notice is that the credit is not eligible as it was availed by the assessee under the erstwhile Rule 6 of Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and also for the reason that the advertisement and insurance services have no nexus with the output service of clearing and forwarding agent service - Held that - In a catena of decisions, it has been held that when input services, are rela....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 785 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow

    Unjust enrichment - refund claim - Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is attracted where the appellants have cleared the goods on MRP based assessment, as required under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act? - Held that - this Tribunal in the case of Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd 2007 (1) TMI 432 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and in the case of Girish Foods & Beverages 2007 (2) TMI 28 - CESTAT, MUMBA....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 784 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Indian Refrigerator Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

    CENVAT credit - department was of the view that appellants are not eligible for availing credit on the mixer-grinder assembly received by them - whether the appellants are eligible to avail credit on the mixer-grinder assembly received by them from M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd.? - Held that - It is not disputed that at the time of clearance of the combi pack containing both refrigerator and mixer-grinder, the appellant have paid excise duty on th....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 783 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    M/s. Well Rope International Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi

    Classification of goods - plastic ropes - Whether the report of the chemical examiner is admissible or not if the same is admissible whether the goods are correctly classifiable as plastic ropes to demand duty or not? - Held that - the report of the chemical examiner is doubtful. Accordingly, the same cannot be the basis to determine the quality/classification of the goods in question manufactured form LDPE. - Whether any evidence has brought on ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 782 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal

    CENVAT credit - Channels, Plates, TMT bars etc. - inputs - capital goods - Rule 2 (k) and Rule 2 (a) (A) of Cenvat Credit of Rules, 2004 - Held that - the matter is covered by Tribunal s decisions in cases of CC & CCE., Vishakhapatnam-II V/s APP Mills Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 494 - CESTAT BANGALORE and Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut-II 2016 (3) TMI 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , whereunder Cenvat credit for subject items has been allowed to the asse....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 781 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Xerox India Ltd., Shri. A.K. Srivastava, Senior Manager, Shri. S.K. Gupta, Finance Controller Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut

    Manufacture - process of kitting various sub assemblies were grouped into a kit and the kit also including certain components which were procured indigenously - It appeared to Revenue that such activity of kitting was assembly of machines by putting together various components to bring into a new machine and amounts to manufacture by invoking provision under Section Note 6 of Section XVI of Tariff Act - Held that - the requirement of facts for in....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 780 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I

    Reversal of cenvat credit after finished goods become exempted goods - N/N. 10/2003 - Held that - Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs CCE Madurai-II - 2014 (12) TMI 905 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that If credit can be taken against excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day, it makes it abundantly clear that there need not be co-relation between the input and the goods cleared and as a re....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Madhav Marbles & Granites Ltd. Versus CCE, Salem

    Whether the imported resins used in the manufacture of polished granite is a raw material or consumable - 100 EOU - Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 - Interest - Penalty - Held that - In the case of Gem Granites Vs. Commissioner of customs, Seaport (Import), Chennai - 2007 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, CHENNAI wherein it was held that the Bench considered Notification No.23/03-C.E. as well. It also took into account the Development Commissioner1s c....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited, Prem Chand Jain, Director, J.D. Pant, General Manager Versus CCE, (Prev.) Jaipur And (Vice-Versa)

    Clandestine removal - On physical verification of stock of finished goods shortage of finished products to the extent of 88.209 MT was noticed - demand confirmed on the basis of the kachha slips and inculpatory statements given by Sh. J. D. Pant, General Manager as well as Sh. Prem Chand Jain, Director - Held that - since the adjudicating authority has given detailed findings that all the goods covered by 25 kachha parchis have been cleared on pa....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 777 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Indus Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III

    Penalty - interest - compounded levy scheme - Appellant defaulted in discharging their duty liability for the period from November 1997 to March 1998, which was paid later - Held that - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs CCE 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that demand of interest as well as the imposition of penalty under the said provisions of Central Excise Rules is ultra vires - inter....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 776 - CESTAT BANGALORE

    Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bangalore-III Versus M/s. MAA Printers

    Manufacture - job-work - printing of information - whether the process amounts to manufacture? - Held that - There is no manufacture in mere printing of information and this is settled law and there is no change in the product after the printing is carried out and the process cannot be said to be manufacture - The appellants were engaged in the activity of printing on paper certain instructions for use of goods which would be wrapped therein for ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus KSB Pumps Ltd

    Utilisation of raw materials procured under CT-2 form - Revenue alleged that the raw materials received under CT-2 forms were not used in the manufacture of power driven pumps primarily designed for pumping water - Held that - raw materials procured under CT-2 form prescribes that the goods procured through these forms shall be subject to the conditions of N/N. 5/1998-CE dated 02/06/2000, No. 6/2000-CE 01/03/2000 and 3/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001 - ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 774 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Felis Leo Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

    SSI exemption - Clearance for export through merchant exporter - N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 28-2-2003 - Revenue alleged that the goods not cleared for home consumption cannot be cleared under concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2003, hence demanded the differential duty - Held that - Unless it is shown that the clearance challenged by the Revenue is not within the total permissible clearance, exemption cannot be denied - appeal allowe....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 773 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Mercury Pneumatics Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai

    Valuation - discount/commission - includibility - It is the case of the Revenue that this amount deducted as trade discount is nothing but commission while it is the case of the assessee-appellant that the amounts disputed are discount - whether discount/commission given to the sales agent is to be included in the assessable value? - Held that - One transaction of the sales is regarding direct sale to the customers which is executed and overridin....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 772 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II Versus Shreeji Engineering Works

    Time limitation - for the purpose of demand within the normal period in terms of Section 11A(3)(ii)(a) which period will be covered? - penalty - Held that - according to Section 11A(3)(ii)(a) the period would be the six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice i.e. the date on which the duty is to be paid under this act or the rules made thereunder. In view of this provision, it can be seen that for the purpose of show cause notice ....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 764 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Welspring Universal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

    100 EOU - proceedings against appellant as well as on his partner - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 11/2016-Cus., dated 15-3-2016 - co-noticee in the context of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The circular clarified that when the noticee pays up the entire duty, interest and penalty, under such circumstances the proceedings shall be considered as closed not only against the noticee but also against the other persons to whom any dem....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 701 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    M/s. Century Plyboards Limited, Shri Anoop Bansal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rohtak

    Clandestine removal - while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, there was clear-cut directions to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of clandestine removal in the light of guidelines in Para-14, in the case of Arya Fibers Limited 2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Held that - none of those guidelines have been followed in this case while alleging the clandestine removal against the appellant - the manufacturin....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 700 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    M/s. Century Ply-boards Limited, Shri Sanwat Ram Koori Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rohtak

    Clandestine removal - while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, there was clear-cut directions to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of clandestine removal in the light of guidelines in Para-14, in the case of Arya Fibers Limited 2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Held that - none of those guidelines have been followed in this case while alleging the clandestine removal against the appellant - the manufacturin....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 699 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Tamilnadu Newsprint & Papers Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy

    Claiming concessional rate of duty - N/N. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 - manufacturing of paper - It appeared to the department that the actual weight of pulp of materials other than excluded category was below the percentage stipulated - Held that - No doubt, the related SCN did invoke the entire demand on the ground of manipulation of records and there remains suppression of facts. However, in the previous Order of this Tribunal dated 24.5.2007, it h....... + More


  • 2017 (8) TMI 698 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    Shri. Mahalaxmi Distilleries, Amrit Lal Garg, Mahender Prasad Bansal, Kishore Aggarwal Versus CCE, Rohtak

    Clandestine removal of goods - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - the statements of the appellants were recorded, no investigation was conducted at the end of the appellants and the transporters were also not investigated to reveal the truth whether the clandestine removal of goods from M/s IFL and M/s IAPL were transported up to the place of appellants. Moreover, no cross examination of the persons whose statement was relied upon and so....... + More


1........
 
 
 


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version