Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Tri Central Excise - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 53953 Records

  • 2017 (12) TMI 643 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Tamilnadu Paints & Allied Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

    Benefit of SSI Exemption - Classification of goods - Road Marking Paints - classified under CETA 3210.90 or under CETA 3208.90? - case of appellant is that they are eligible for SSI exemption as prevalent during the impugned period, in which case they claim that there shall be no duty liability since all their clearances will be within the exempted turn over limits - Held that - appellants have accepted the CETA classification of 3208.90 in respe....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 617 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Tansi Engineering Works, Tansi Project Cell Versus Commissioner of Central Excise

    Waste and scrap - excisability - it appeared that appellant had removed a quantity of 22,790 MT of waste and scrap which had arisen during the course of manufacture of finished goods to one Kanishk Steel Industries without payment of excise duty - Department took the view that such waste and scrap that have arisen during the course of manufacture are excisable and dutiable - SSI Exemption - Held that - The department has only found fault with the....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 610 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals) , Coimbatore

    Classification of goods - Traverse Assembly - Flat Drive Reversal System - whether classified under CTH 84.48 or otherwise? - Held that - The lower appellate authority in para-3 of the impugned order has gone into detail into the performance and functioning of each of these impugned items. He has correctly observed that it is not the case that these items are sent along with a new carding machine, but that they are actually being sent separately ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 608 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Western Fresh Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Madurai

    Interpretation of statute - whether the phrase intended for storage of agricultural produce can be interpreted as intended for exclusive storage of agricultural produce only? - Held that - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. 1987 (11) TMI 94 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA had gone into the interpretation of the term for use and had concluded that the term only means intended for use and that if the legisl....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 607 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Mitsuba Sical India Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai

    CENVAT credit - removal of moulds to other manufacturers (other than the job workers) for production of goods without reversing the credit availed on such moulds - Rule 3 (5) of CCR, 2004 - Held that - The Hon ble High Court in the case of CCE, Pondicherry Vs. Whirlpool of India Ltd. 2014 (9) TMI 717 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had analysed the issue whether it is necessary for the purpose of sub-rule 8 of Rule 57 S of CER, 1944, that raw materials shoul....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 606 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Saranya Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., Shri R. Periyasamy, Shri P Ashok Kumar, Shri R. Thangavel Versus CCE & ST, Salem

    Clandestine Removal - main allegation raised against the appellants is that they did not have reeling machines which were fully functional during the disputed period and that they were clearing only cone yarn in the guise of hank yarn to evade payment of central excise duty - Held that - the department has not been able to establish clandestine clearances of the finished products on the part of the appellants - In Continental Cement Company Vs. U....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 604 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Walltracts India Pvt. Ltd., Shri Arun R. Jausuja, General Manager Versus CCE Delhi-II

    Manufacture or service - whether the presented goods are considered as excisable goods liable to payment of excise duty or the whole process is to be considered as a service in which certain goods are supplied during the course of rendering service? - Held that - Since the fabric is fixed to the aluminum tube in the factory as also the motor in certain cases, therefore, the blinds can be said to have come into existence in the factory premises. S....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 603 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Genius Electrical And Electronics Pvt Ltd., M/s. Sattvik Industries, M/s. Asha Chemicals Versus C.C.E. New Delhi-II

    CENVAT credit - fake invoices - Department found that the machines installed in the factory premises of M/s. Satvik Industries and the number of employees were insufficient to manufacture the PVC insulated wire and winding wire of copper that is their final product - Held that - The expression reversal of credit is normally used when wrong credit is reversed by debit in the cenvat credit account without issue of any invoice. The expression is als....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 602 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Kunsons Metals Limited, Vimal Kumar Jain Versus CCE, Jaipur-I

    Benefit of N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1988 - denial on the ground that no excise duty was paid on the final products manufactured out of job worked goods by the principal manufacturer - Held that - The specified goods manufactured in a factory as a job work are exempt when they are used in relation to the manufacture of the final products on which duty of excise is leviable in whole or in part - Admittedly, the final products which are manufactur....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 601 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Agarwal Plastic (India) , Rajeev Aggarwal Versus CCE, Delhi-II

    Condonation of delay in filing appeal - the appellant never informed the department about change of address after closing of the factory - Held that - a person cannot take advantage of his wrongs as per the maxim COMMODUM EX INJURIA SUA MEMO HABERE DEBET - the assessee-appellant has never informed the department about the change of address. Earlier also appellant was not serious about the show cause notice. There is no proper explanation in the p....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 597 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Orient Steel Re-rolling Mills. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur

    Clandestine removal - Whether for some discrepancy found in the quantity of stock of raw material and finished goods, than the recorded balance in the register, whether duty and penalty are being rightly imposed along with confiscation of the goods found in excess, and further order for release of goods on payment of redemption fine is tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case? - Held that - no actual weighment of the stock of raw materi....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 594 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    C.C.E., Raipur Versus M/s. Jindal Steel And Power Ltd.

    Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - there is no dispute on the fact that refund was payable to the respondent on merit - even in the case of captive consumption the unjust enrichment will be applicable as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (2) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 592 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I Versus M/s. Thermax Ltd

    Penalty u/s 11AC - CENVAT credit - trading activity - whether the appellant is required to comply with the provision of Rule 6(3) by making payment at the rate 5 of the value of trading activity being exempted service? - Held that - there is ambiguity on the issue, there was no intent to evade duty - as per the fact of the case no malafide established on the part of the appellant therefore ingredients required for invocation of Section 11AC are a....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 591 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Shri. Sanjay Mittal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

    Clandestine removal - cash recovered from the office of the appellant was seized on the ground that this cash is proceed of sale of clandestine removal of goods - Held that - in entire case it was not established that who is manufacturer of the goods and whether the goods were cleared clandestinely by carrying out investigation with the manufacturer. Therefore there is no link between the manufacturer, manufactured goods, receipt thereof and sale....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 551 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Hari Trading Co. Versus C.C.E., Indore

    Clandestine manufacture and removal - pan masala - It was observed that the appellant was indulged in the surreptitious activity of packing and removing of such notified goods manufactured with the aid of undeclared pouch packing machine - Held that - the machine was used only for two days in manufacturing the notified goods. As per the 8th proviso appended to Rule 9 of the said rules, the duty payable shall be calculated on pro-rata basis of the....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 550 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    M/s. Jindal Stainless ltd., Shri Giridhari Kataruka, M/s. JSL Stainless Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax

    CENVAT credit - input - materials for making structurals, platforms etc. to support the machinery etc. in the factory - Held that - cenvat credit on the cement and TMT bar in lying foundation is applicable as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, 2016 (10) TMI 615 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where cenvat credit was allowed on the cement which were used for the capital goods. - Regarding structural items, c....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Mr. Sunil Kothari, Director, Mukesh Sangla Versus C.C.E., Indore

    Penalty - Department has alleged that M/s. Laxmi Pipes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. had availed Cenvat Credit, without actual receipt of the goods - Held that - Since the statement recorded from Shri Mukesh Sangla was not considered by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.06.2015 and exonerated the appellants therein, included Shri Mukesh Sangla, holding that there is no clandestine receipt of only fabricated documents, I am of the view that similar trea....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 548 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd Versus CCEx, Pune-III

    Penalty u/s 11AC - Valuation - whether the valuation of physician samples supplied free of cost is governed by Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation (Determination of price of excisable goods) Rules, 2000 i.e. 110 of cost of manufacture or pro rata of MRP of trade pack? - Held that - there is no dispute that issue on valuation of free supply of physician s samples was contentious and interpretation of valuation of provision was involved. The board c....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Tirupati Metal Works, Shri Sanjay Gupta Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II

    Area Based Exemption - N/N. 49/2003-CE as also 50/2003-CE - As the principal manufacturer was enjoying the area based exemption notification, Revenue was of the opinion that the job worker could not have sent the aluminum ingots to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty inasmuch as the final product of the principal manufacturer was exempted - Held that - The goods apparently have been cleared from the appellants premises back to M/s........ + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 546 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Castex Technologies Limited Versus CCE&ST, Alwar

    N/N. 65/1995 dated 16.03.95 - tools manufactured remain with the appellant even after recovering the cost of the tooling. Thus, the tooling so removed never come out from the factory of the appellant - Held that - identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Ozla Plastooraft (P) Ltd. and Sh. Manjeet Singh Director Vs. CCE, Delhi-II 2016 (4) TMI 279 CESTAT, New Delhi , where it was held that only criteria for grant of exemption i....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version