Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2016 2016 2016 (8) Central Excise - 2016 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property 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 National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 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 - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 317 Records

• 2016 (8) TMI 1515 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Rejection of refund claim/export rebate - rejection on the ground of time limitation - appeal initially filed before wrong forum - allegation that claim apparently made to the wrong Maritime Commissioner; instead of filing it before the appropriate jurisdictional Commissioner, i.e., in Bhiwadi or in Delhi where the exports took place - HELD THAT:- In this case, what the petitioners were seeking was neither revisional nor appellate relief. Rather they were seeking a benefit which was admissible to them in terms of a Statute and the Notifications issued thereunder. That they were liable to pay customs duty for the imports made is not disputed; that for such imports upon export of the ultimate produce, they were entitled to revision/rebate is also not in dispute; it is rather an entitlement. This rebate was premised upon sound public policy, i.e., encouragement of export on foreign exchange earnings. Such being the case, the considerations as well as the construction to be placed upon Section 11B which applies to all manner of refunds - whether it is in case of excess payment of duty, amounts payable where no duty is leviable or in the case of refund unrelated to levy per se would vary. In a case where refund is claimed on account of the entitlement of an application under some scheme which is conceived in the larger public interest, strict adherence to the principle that an application made within the period of time to the wrong authority but subsequently filed before the correct authority would still be considered time-barred, in our opinion, acts very unreasonably.

  In the case of M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT] has surveyed the law on the subject - including Parson Tools - and concluded that the period from the cause of action till institution of appellate or revisional proceedings from original proceedings - which proved to be abortive appeal should be excluded.

  The refund claims should have been adjudicated as if they had been originally filed before the authorities having jurisdiction. That rebate was premised on the basis of jurisdiction, primarily applicable for assessment is a matter of convenience in the circumstances of the case - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1438 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - bar on utilization of CENVAT Credit - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The three different High Courts of the country have already declared Rule 8(3A) of Rules, 2002 ultra vires of Constitution being unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution. Gujarat High Court has struck down the aforesaid Rule in INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Madras High Court has done so in M/S. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (5) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Punjab and Haryana High Court has also taken the same view in M/S SANDLEY INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [2015 (10) TMI 2455 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT].

  Rule 8(3A) of Rules 2002 is declared violative of Article 14 of Constitution - impugned order set aside - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1418 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction - Held that:- Let there be a notice for final hearing returnable on 21.9.2016. We are consciously not admitting the matter, though convinced qua admission of the matter, in order to avoid the separate consideration.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1400 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Time limitation - service of notice - the adjudication order dated 28-12-2012 was sent by the Range Office on 21-2-2014 and the same was received on 28-2-2014. The appeal was filed on 19-3-2014 - Held that:- The proof of delivery of the order is not available in the file. Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 mandates that in case of dispatch of the order or decision through speed post, the proof of delivery has to be obtained - In this case, admittedly, the proof of delivery of the order is not available, and hence, it has to be presumed that the order sent by the Department was not received by the appellant.

  Since the appeal was filed within one month from the date of its receipt, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the issue, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1399 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Penalty u/r 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- The impugned order has ordered penalty only for the reason that he has signed the declaration. In our opinion, such action by itself is not sufficient and mens rea has to be established for imposing penalty - penalty not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1387 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Application for withdrawal of appeal - Revenue says that as per the policy of the Board, they propose to withdraw these appeals filed by Revenue through these miscellaneous applications - Held that:- Prayer of Revenue is allowed and the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1386 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Prayer for withdrawal of appeal - Held that:- Prayer of Revenue is allowed and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn - Miscellaneous application is also disposed accordingly.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1376 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT Credit - inputs - fabrication, erection and installation of various capital goods and supporting structures, namely pollution control equipment, conveyor support and gallery, stock house bunker and bunker support etc. - Held that:- It may be mentioned that in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the term of “input” has been defined and Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 also states that “input” includes goods used in the manufacture of the capital goods, which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. Thus, it is not necessary that the “input” exclusively be used in or in relation to the final product - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1347 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Penalty u/r 25 and section 11AC - Held that: - appellant had duly reflected the entire Service Tax liability in the periodical returns filed with the Department and accordingly it is held that there can not be any malafide intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of Service Tax - Service Tax law provides for delayed payment of Service Tax alongwith interest which has been duly complied by the appellant - appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1328 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund claim - finalization of provisional assessment - denial on the ground of time bar and unjust enrichment - Held that: - Any duty collected in excess during the pendency of finalisation of provisional assessment is in excess of that authorized by law and must, perforce, be returned to the assessee. There is no requirement for a separate application for refund. The original authority erred in directing that a claim be filed in consequence to finalisation and the first appellate authority erred in concurring with the finding that a part of the claim was barred by limitation.

  Unjust enrichment - Held that: - The appellant has produced a certificate of Chartered Accountant that the amount receivable has been shown in the accounts as ‘receivable’ and this is sufficient evidence that the incidence of duty has not been passed on.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1319 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Misdeclaration of value of goods - cost of grey fabrics - Held that: - appellant had filed price declaration as required of him as per details given by the merchant manufacturer including the job charges. There is nothing on record to show that appellant was aware of suppression of the prices of the grey fabrics - In the absence of any evidence to point out the role of appellant in suppression of the grey fabrics, the duty liability cannot be fastened on appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1314 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Restoration of petition - Held that: - the appeal was dismissed on 21-11-2011 for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F. The order passed on 21-11-2011 was an automatic corollary of the failure of the petitioner to comply with the conditional order, dated 8-8-2011. The conditional order, dated 8-8-2011, is not under challenge. It has attained finality. Therefore, there is no way, the final order, dated 21-11-2011, can be interfered with, even while retaining the conditional order, dated 8-8-2011. Therefore, there is no point in restoring W.P. No. 7685 of 2012, as no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the said writ petition. Hence, W.P.M.P. No. 20808 of 2016 is dismissed.

  Garnishee order - main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed by Section 110A of the Customs Act, for the provisional release of the goods - Held that: - Once a demand has attained finality, there can be no challenge to the method of recovery, unless the method of recovery itself is not, in accordance with the procedure prescribed. We do not find any procedural infirmity in the method of recovery now resorted to, by the respondents. Therefore, the second writ petition, W.P. No. 3570 of 2016, is also devoid of merits and, hence, the same is dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty u/r 25 and 26 - misutilisation of benefit of N/N. 8/2006-C.E - Held that: - it is undisputed and on record that FSPL had filed a declaration with the jurisdictional authorities of the appellant that they are functioning under N/N. 214/86-C.E. The said notification envisages manufacturing of goods in the hands of the job worker and receiving the same back and after doing some activity clear the same on payment of Central Excise duty - In the case in hand, appellant could not have imagined or visualised that the said FSPL was not undertaking any manufacturing activity at his hand despite making a declaration under N/N. 214/86. In the absence of this, the appellant was correct in pleading before the lower authorities that penalties cannot be imposed on them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1297 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  CENVAT credit - supplies made to SEZ developer - whether in respect of supplies made by DTA unit to SEZ Developer prior to 13.12.2008 has to be treated as ‘exempted clearances’ as per CCR and consequently provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 applies or not? - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of S.P. Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur [2013 (9) TMI 1108 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that after enactment of the Special Economic Zones Act 2005 w.e.f. 10.02.2006 supplies to SEZ from DTA are treated as export of dutiable goods and entitled to benefit as such, including that of exception in Rule 6(6) of CCR 2004, of not requiring separate accounts of dutiable and non-dutiable inputs/services to be maintained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1293 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Non-compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - the learned Tribunal has rightly held that there is no jurisdiction to modify its order dated 24-6-2014. The appeal filed by the appellant has been rightly dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F of the CEA, 1944 - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1284 - CESTAT, CHANDIGARH
  

  CENVAT credit - telecom towers/erection of towers - denial on the ground that telecom towers/erection of towers are neither goods nor input for the appellant - Held that: - Installation of telecom towers are for the purpose of providing the out-put service by the appellant - Since the disputed services have been used by the appellant for erection of the telecom towers, which is used for providing the taxable output service, it will not be appropriate to deny the Cenvat benefit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1251 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of Pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - amendment brought in the section on 6-8-2014 - Held that: - there is no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944 and CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, CESTAT circular or CBEC circular which satisfies that the amount paid in one appeal could be adjusted towards another appeal. The language of Section 35F is very clear and it says that “the Tribunal should not entertain any appeal without making the mandatory pre-deposit specified in the Section” - appellants directed to pre-deposit as per Section 35F within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1249 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Penalty - appellant is a registered dealer but found non-existent at the time of visit - Held that: - the evidence produced by the appellant is having evidential value - the Revenue has produced inculpatory statement of various witnesses. Those witnesses have not been examined from Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In that circumstances, the statements of witnesses have no evidential value. In these circumstances, benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants, therefore, the impugned order deserves no merits - penalty set aside.

  With regard to the registration certificate, as the appellants itself have stopped working since 2008. Therefore, the order of withdrawal registration certificate stands confirmed w.e.f. 2008.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1247 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the order passed by the Tribunal in imposing the penalty is correct in law when there is a bona fide belief when Section 3A read with Rule 96ZP3(ii) of the Central Excise Rules were ultra vires? - Held that: - considering the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills’s case [2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, the provisions of Rules 96ZO, 96ZP and 96ZQ of the Rules have been held to be ultra vires with reference to levy of interest and penalty only, in our view, interest and penalty levied on the appellant under the aforesaid provisions, cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (8) TMI 1244 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Reversal of CENVAT credit - non-maintenance of separate records for taxable as well as taxable goods - Held that: - the issue is now covered by the retrospective amendment to the relevant CENVAT Credit Rules as were in force during the relevant period by virtue of Sections 69 to 73 of Finance Act, 2010 and the assessee was allowed to reverse the proportionate credit on inputs attributable to exempted products - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

12345........ 16