Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals Articles SMS News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Tri Central Excise - Tri
Citation -
Order by


Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 55701 Records

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1316 - CESTAT NEW DELHI


    Rebate claim - DEPB scheme - false documents and Bills of Entry - principles of natural justice - Held that - the impugned orders were passed ex-parte and without having cognizance to the reply submitted by the appellant - During the course of arguments, learned Counsel submitted that first time evidence can also be produced before the Tribunal. - Matter remanded to the original authority to decide the issues denovo on merit but by providing reas....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1315 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Versus CCCE & ST, Hyderabad-I

    Classification of goods - Mahindra Bolero Camper and its variants - appellants informed the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities that they intend to classify the said Bolero Camper as motor vehicle for transportation of goods under CETH classification 8704.21.90, w.e.f. 01.07.2008 - Department took the view that the impugned motor vehicle is not primarily meant for carrying loads but for transporting persons and hence would merit classificat....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1314 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vijayawada Versus Fizikem Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Shri C.C. Kesava Rao Managing Director, Shri G.N.C. Prasad, Prop. Subhash International and Shri Ch. Ashok Kumar, Prop. Sterling Health Care

    SSI Exemption - dummy units - mutuality of interest between Fizikem and its distributor - value of clearances in the related preceding financial years had exceeded the SSI limit - Held that - The investigation has not thrown up irrefutable evidence to establish that there is mutuality of interest , flow back of funds or even tangled web of financial arrangements between the respondents - lower appellate authority is correct in concluding that the....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1313 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    ITC Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax, Hyderabad

    CENVAT credit - welding electrodes - Held that - Since there is no dispute as to the fact that the welding electrodes were received and used in the factory premise during the relevant period in question for maintenance and the issue having been settled by the Apex court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that for the proposition that the definition of input during the relevant period....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1312 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    M/s. Aerocon Corporation Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-V

    Export of goods to Falta Special Economic Zone (SEZ) without furnishing a General Bond or Letter of Undertaking to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise - contravention of provisions of Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with N/N. 42/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 as amended - Held that - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner 1991 (8) TMI 83 - SUPREM....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1311 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Spykar Lifestyles Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II

    Interest on late reversal of CENVAT credit - sale of readymade garments in respect of their own manufactured goods as well as trading goods - Rule 6(3A)(e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - The provision u/r 6(3A)(e) of CCR for interest is in respect of amount payable under the provision of Rule 6(3A), aforesaid provision is explicit, therefore in terms of Rule 6(3A) (e) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 interest is legally chargeable - in te....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1310 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s. Buneesha Chem Pvt. Ltd. Bhupender S. Gupta Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad

    Manufacture - demand was confirmed invoking Rule 6(3)(i) Cenvat Credit Rules,2004 on the ground that appellant s activity of repacking and re-labeling does not amount to manufacture therefore activity amount to trading only - Rule 6(3) (i) of CCR - Held that - it is undisputed fact that appellant even though the activity does not amount to manufacture but cleared re-packed goods on payment of duty, which is more than the amount payable under Rule....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1309 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Versus Accusynth Speciality Chemicals P. Ltd.

    Refund claim - time limitation - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Whether refund claim made u/r 5 and notification issued thereunder, limitation of one year as per Section 11B shall apply or otherwise? - Held that - larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, And Service Tax, Bengaluru Service Tax-I Vs. M/s. Span Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (2) TMI 946 - CESTAT BANGALORE held that in case of refund under Rule 5 o....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1308 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s. Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Navi Mumbai

    Valuation - non-inclusion of certain amounts recovered by the appellant - whether the value of software supplied separately at the option of buyer is includible in the assessable value of goods? - extended period of limitation - Held that - it is apparent that the matter is not free from doubt and one could hold a bona fide view that the said value of optional software is not includible - In the instant case extended period of limitation has been....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1307 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Versus Empire Shoes And Others, Joy Shoes And Others, Metro Shoes Ltd., Cheemo Leather Boutique, And Dawood Shoes Pvt. Ltd.

    Clandestine manufacture and removal - footwears - the goods were shown to have been manufactured by societies which as per the department were bogus - Revenue is against the findings that the goods were manufactured by the individual cobblers/ karigars and cleared through societies and that there is no evidence to show that the Respondents manufactured the goods themselves or got the same manufactured on their behalf - corroborative evidences. - ....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1306 - CESTAT BANGALORE

    M/s. BPL Telecom Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs and Service Tax

    CENVAT credit - input service - insurance services - Rule 2(l) of CCR 2004 - Held that - prior to the amendment in the definition of input service w.e.f 1.4.2011, the scope of input service was very wide and it includes all the services which fall in or in relation to the manufacture of final product - the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit of service tax paid on insurance premium in respect of dependent/family members of the employees. - T....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1305 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II

    CENVAT credit - input services - insurance used in respect of family members of their employees - Held that - there is no merit in the appeal in respect of the credit availed in respect of family members and the same is denied. - Penalty - Held that - there can be a bonafide doubt in the mind of the appellant as it can be an issue of interpretation - penalty set aside. - Appeal allowed in part........ + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1304 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s G.P. Global Industries Pvt. Ltd., Sapan Khetan, M/s Om Shree Rupesh Steel Pvt. Ltd., Shri Shankar Lal Agrawal, M/s Sairam Steel Pvt. Ltd. Shri Pawan Kumar Agrawal, M/s Gayatri Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., Shri Shrawan Agrawa Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Bilaspur

    Clandestine removal - Sponge Iron - shortage of finished goods - demands based on documents recovered from Shri Ambika Ispat and the statements of various persons - time limitation u/s 11A (1) of the Act - Held that - The demand is wholly presumptive, based on suspicions and /or investigation conducted at the end of the so-called supplier Shri Ambika Ispat - The revenue have not found any irregularity in the affairs of these appellants, who are a....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1303 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    CCE&ST, JSR Versus M/s. Sidhi Vinayk Metcom Ltd., JSR

    CENVAT credit - structural items such as Angle, Channel, Plate etc. - principles of natural justice - Held that - the Adjudicating authority passed an ex parte Order without verification of the use of the items - It is well settled by the various judicial authorities that the Cenvat Credit would be allowed after examination of the use of the items in question as the lower authorities had not examined the use of the items - the matter is remanded ....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1302 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    Commr. of Central Excise, JSR Versus M/s. Shanti Udyog Co., JSR

    Valuation - job-work - inclusion of reimbursement expenses - Freight - place of removal - testing charges - Held that - the place of removal and the conversion charges were fixed on ex factory basis. Therefore, freight or profits earned in transportation cannot be part of the assessable value of the goods in terms of Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination in Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Section 4 (3) (d) i.e. def....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1301 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    M/s. Cement Manufacturing Company Ltd., Megha Technical & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., and Others Versus Commr. of Central Excise & Service Tax, Shillong

    Valuation - inclusion of VAT - whether the VAT which has been collected and retained by the appellants to the extent of 99 (as 1 deposited with the State Exchequer) is to be added to the assessable value for determining the Central Excise duty payable? - Held that - an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the cases of M/s Bhagwat Sai Metal Alloys & Others Vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Guwahati 2018 (4) TMI 1294 - CESTAT KOLKATA ....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1300 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Panacea Alloys Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Tax & Service TaxPune – I

    Rebate claim - merchant supplier - appellant herein had procured/purchased the batteries on which Central Excise duty has been discharged - applicability of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that - It can be seen from Section 11 of the CEA 1944, the same contemplates about recovery/ adjustment/appropriation of the amounts which are due to the Government from the person against whom duty liability is confirmed and due to government....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1294 - CESTAT KOLKATA

    Bhagwati Sai Metal Alloys Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Guwahati & Others

    Valuation - inclusion of VAT in assessable value - appellants were allowed to collect the VAT/sale tax from the customers as per the tariff and retain the same, only 1 of the VAT collected will have to be paid to the state exchequer - whether the VAT which has been collected and retained by the appellant to the extent of 99 (as 1 deposited with the state exchequer) is to be added to the assessable value for determining the Central Excise duty pay....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Madhyanchal Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore

    Clandestine removal - shortage of raw material - CENVAT credit on Billets - Held that - as the due date for payment was not yet to come, the allegation of clandestine removal of goods on these invoices is not substantiated and accordingly the demand of ₹ 3,36,510/- is set aside. - The admitted fact is that the appellant had deposited the amount of ₹ 13,46,036/- before the issue of Show Cause Notice ( ) further ₹ 3,17,381/- towar....... + More

  • 2018 (4) TMI 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Real Talent Engineering Ltd. Versus CE & ST, Chennai –III

    Valuation - The raw materials are supplied by the principal manufacturer BIL to the appellants. After carrying out the manufacturing activity, the goods are cleared back to BIL who used such goods for further manufacture at their end - Rule 10 A (i) and (ii) of the Central Excise Valuation Rules - Held that - Since this is not a case of the principal manufacturer immediately selling the goods manufactured by the appellants, Rule 10A of the Centra....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

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

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

Go to Mobile Version