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

 

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 66848 Records

  • 2017 (11) TMI 596 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Commissioner of C. Ex., Kanpur Versus Bajrang Petro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

    Classification of leftover goods after manufacture - Residual Crude Petroleum Oil or Reduced Crude Petroleum Oil - whether classified under CTH 2709.00.00 or under CTH 2713 90 00? - Held that - Respondents produced report before learned Commissioner (Appeals), issued by IIT, New Delhi, which indicated that Reduced Crude Oil was in fact crude oil - Revenue could not put forth any grounds for refusing the certificate issued by the IIT, New Delhi ab....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 595 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Vimal Plast (I) Pvt. Ltd., Shri Satish Batra, Director of Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

    CENVAT credit - job-work - returned inputs - Department s allegation is that in a number of cases the material returned to the customers was not the one which had been received from customers, but was from the stocks of Cenvat credit taken inputs of the appellants - Whether the appellants on return back of such material to the supplier cleared their own raw materials on which Cenvat credit was availed by them and as to whether Cenvat credit invol....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 594 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s JBM Auto Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

    Clearance to 100 EOU - Refund claim - deemed export - period of limitation - Held that - the issue on merits is settled in favor of the appellant, by Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER - CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS Versus NBM INDUSTRIES 2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that Refund of Cenvat credit was available on inputs used in manufacture of goods cleared by DTA unit to 100 EOU that Refund could not b....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 534 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Union of India Versus M/s Manmade Spinners India Ltd.,

    Evasion of duty - jurisdiction of Settlement Commission - Held that - This Court, would entertain the Petition under Article 226 arising out of the order of the statutory Tribunal, only if it is found that the view taken by the Tribunal is either perverse or impossible. No perversity or impossibility is noticed in the order of the learned Tribunal - The learned Tribunal has given cogent and sound reasons as to why it felt it appropriate to entert....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 533 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Raigad

    Clandestine removal - Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding a charge of clandestine removal in the absence of any documentary evidence to show acquisition and consumption of unrecorded raw material and manufacture of unaccounted goods? - Held that - The Tribunal found that the report made by the Court receiver did not support the version of the assessee that processed fabrics taken over by the Court Receiver and sent back to their SMP g....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 532 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik Versus M/s. R.K. Patel & Co. Tobacco Manufacturers & 4 Partners

    Clandestine removal - corroborative evidences - Summoning of persons - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was correct in law rejecting the evidences recorded/collected in an inquiry conducted under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is deemed to be judicial proceedings under Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 ibid, within the meaning of Section 193 and Section 128 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860? - Held that - ....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 531 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    IVP Limited and Anr. Versus Union of India and Ors.

    Condonation of delay - power of the Appellate Tribunal to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act - Sub-Section (2) of Section 35C - Held that - the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP. Versus Madan Lal Das & Sons, Bareilly 1976 (9) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that though Section 14 may not in terms apply to the quasi-judicial Tribunals, the principle of Section 14 based on advancing the cause of j....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 530 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Versus M/s. Kundan Edible Products Ltd.

    CENVAT credit - Whether the Hon ble CESTAT is correct in dropping demand of Cenvat Credit on common inputs issued under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 6 & 12 of erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 for having not maintained separate accounts as mandated statutorily by law? - Held that - both the authorities has gone into detail regarding the point which has been canvassed by counsel for the appellant and that statem....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Mrs. Padma Raghavan Sri Vigneswara Textile Printers Versus Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs (Appeals)

    Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that - The first respondent considered the application for refund and passed an order dated 21.01.1999, ordering refund, but directing payment of amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund - Once again, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner, who by order dated 21.06.2001, allowed the appeal, holding that since this was duty paid on demand, there was no question of the petitioner passing on the duty b....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 478 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Alumeco India Extrusion Ltd, Agarvanshi Aluminium Ltd., Mr. B.B. Agarwal, Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. P. Bhaskara Rao Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad

    Clandestine removal - job-work - Whether the total quantity of 1071.3863 MT of materials sent by Agarvanshi Ltd under job work challans in terms of Notification No 214/1986-CE were received by Alumeco Ltd? - Held that - the department has failed to establish from the record that 380.256 MTs of materials have not been received by Alumeco Ltd. Burden of establishing the fact of receipt of material cannot be shifted upon Alumeco Ltd. Whether Alumeco....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 477 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Tata Motors Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune

    Manufacture - iron and steel structure and parts thereof required for construction of factory building/additional factory in their factory premises at Pimpri - Held that - M/s. TELCO contracted M/s. Shapoorjee Pallonjee Pvt Ltd for construction of shed and their premises as per designed by provided by the TELCO. M/s. TELCO has purchased structural steel material, angle, channel etc and provided the same to M/s. Shapoorjee Pallonjee Pvt Ltd who af....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 476 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Refracast Metallurgicals (P) Ltd. And C.C.E., Raipur

    CENVAT credit - diversion of imported goods - Held that - In view of the fact that on the date of presentation of the ERE on 29.07.2005, the same were in the custody of the Customs Department, the matter is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the same were not removed from the Port of Import to the factory of the appellant for use in or in relation to manufacture of the final product - Since, without receipt of the goods covered under the Bill....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 475 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Ind Synergy Ltd Versus CCE, Raipur

    CENVAT credit - captive consumption of electricity - the department was of the view that the appellant was required to pay an amount equal to 10 / 5 of the price of exempted goods, i.e. electricity in terms of the provisions of rule 6 (3) (i) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that - it is settled position of law that substantial benefit cannot be denied for procedural infractions - In as much as the proportionate credit of input and input services stand re....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 474 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s DLF Projects Ltd and others Versus CCE, Delhi

    Classification of goods - Ready-Mix-Concrete - N/N. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (S.No. 74) - case of appellant is that since such goods have been used in construction work at such site, the benefit of notification will be entitled to them - Held that - the issue of entitlement of Ready-Mix-Concrete manufactured at site of construction to the benefit of N/N. 4/2006 is no longer res Integra and stands decided against the assesee by the Apex Court i....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 473 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Aditi Ispat Versus CCE, Raipur

    CENVAT credit - pig iron - pig iron appeared to have been not received and used for the intended purposes of manufacture of final product - case of Revenue is that it is not technically feasible for the appellant to use such quantities of duty paid pig iron in the manufacture of cast iron ingot moulds during the impugned period - Held that - there is no study conducted by NIT. It is only an opinion given based on the query raised by the Commissio....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 472 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited Versus CCE, Jaipur

    CENVAT credit - input - Cement - Department was of the view that since the cement is used after the process of manufacture and is in no way connected with the manufacturing activities of the final products of the appellant, thus, it does not qualify as an input u/r 2(k) of CCR, 2004 for the manufacture of final products - Held that - the identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the earlier period M/s Hindustan Zi....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Ganesh Bakers Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Raipur

    Benefit of N/N. 67/1995-CE dated 16/03/1995 - intermediate product namely sugar syrup (prepared within the factory, used in manufacture of biscuits) - Held that - the identical matter had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Lucky Biscuit Company vs. CCE, Patna 2017 (7) TMI 235 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that CBEC Circular dated 7.11.1994 relied upon by the lower authorities has been issued in respect of sugar syrup produced in t....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 470 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Jaipur

    Rectification of mistake - the imposition of ₹ 2 lakhs as penalty is not warranted, which was imposed by the Order-in-Original No.24/2013 dated 22.3.2013 u/r 25 of the CER, 2002 - Held that - reliance placed in the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI Versus RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD. 2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that a mistake apparent from the record cannot be something w....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 469 - CESTAT BANGALORE

    Universal Coatings India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Bangalore

    CENVAT credit - credit availed on the imported inputs wherein the countervailing duty is deducted/adjusted in the DEPB passbook - appellant s case is during the period in question September 2004 to November 2004, they are eligible to avail the cenvat credit while Revenue is of the view that since the DEPB scripts which were utilized by the appellant were issued as per Exim Policy 2002-07 they are not eligible to avail the cenvat credit. - Held th....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 440 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

    M/s Manidhari Stainless Wire Pvt. Ltd., Pavan Raj Kanugo S/o Sumermal Kanugo Versus Union of India, The Addl. Director General, O/o. Director General, Central Excise Intelligence, Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax

    Principles of Natural Justice - CENVAT credit - S.S. Sheet/S.S. Coils without actually using the same in or in relation to the manufacture of dutiable finished goods - job-work - non-furnishing of documents - non-accountal of procured materials - cross-examination of persons. - Held that - We have already tabulated the details of the persons whom the petitioner wanted to cross-examine and the reasons for the petitioner making such a request. The ....... + More


....6........
 
 
 
Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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