Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise

Court

Law

Citation -


Showing 101 to 120 of 58755 Records

Central Excise - Case Laws

 

2016 (1) TMI 883 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

CCE, Meerut I Versus M/s Dixon Utilities & Export (P) Ltd.

Area based exemption availed under Notification No. 50/2003-CE dated 10/06/2003 - effect of correction in the name of village / area in the notification - Held that - Observation made by the Tribunal in the case of Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut - I (2015 (10) TMI 622 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ) wherein in the identical situation this Tribunal hold that -just because the village in which Industrial area falls was wrongly mentioned and vill.....


2016 (1) TMI 882 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I Versus M/s Johnson & Johnson Ltd.

Adjustment of amounts of refund due to the respondent against confirmed dues of penalty - FAA deleted the adjustment - Held that - Section 11 of the Central Excise Act does not provide for adjustment of money due towards the amount due to Revenue. - The first appellate authority has justifiably held that the adjudicating authority could not have adjusted the amount of ₹ 10 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on the respondent by Order-in-Orig.....


2016 (1) TMI 881 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Nirmal Inductomelts Pvt Ltd, M/s Balaji Industrial Products Ltd, Shri Madhu Sudan Somani, Shri Bharat Bhushan Malik, Shri Pankaj Agarwal Proprietor Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur

Denial of CENVAT credit - non receipt of goods - only procuring invoices - absence of cross examination - Held that - Cross examination of the witness is required to arrive at a fruitful decision of the case. Admittedly in this case, the cross examination was denied to the appellants. As no other corroborative evidence has been produced by the Revenue to deny Cenvat Credit. Therefore, merely on the basis of the statements of transporter / owner /.....


2016 (1) TMI 880 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Delite Kom Ltd., Shri D.K. Kukreja & Shri Varun Kukreja Versus CCE, Delhi-II

Under-valuation being from related persons - interconnected undertaking - Both the entities are controlled by the same person - Held that - All the observations are fact based observations. We do not find any infirmity in the same. Therefore, we conclude that M/s.DKL and M/s. Delite Furniture 2000 are related persons. Consequently, the demands confirmed on account of under-valuation being related persons are upheld. BR BR Demands hit by limitatio.....


2016 (1) TMI 879 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Packotech Industries Versus CCE, Rohtak

Utilized ineligible credit for the payment of final product - whether or not the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture for central excise purpose - Held that - The original authority has erred in not analyzing all the relevant facts involved in the present case. As such, we find that the assessee has followed the cenvat credit scheme as applicable to them in the manufacture of their final products. The demand is not sustainab.....


2016 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Chennai Micro Print Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai - II

SSI Exemption - determination of turnover - Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 - excluding certain clearance/turnover from the aggregate clearance computed as per the Notification - Held that - The leaflets manufactured by the appellant are not branded goods since that was not traded as such for purchase by general public. Such fundamental test negates stand of the appellant that it manufactured branded goods. Accordingly, turnover therefr.....


2016 (1) TMI 844 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Filter Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III

Cenvat Credit - Genuineness of the transaction not proved - Held that - The appellant failed to establish through cogent evidences that the materials mentioned in the respective invoices were received and the duty amount mentioned in the said invoices were also paid to the treasury by the input supplier. Now, before me also, the ld.Advocate for the appellant could not place any of these documents except Xerox copy of one demand draft of ₹ 1.....


2016 (1) TMI 843 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolhapur Versus M/s. Mather Platt Pumps Ltd.

Demand of 10 of the value of the goods cleared to developers of SEZ - whether supplies to developer of SEZ is deemed as export? - whether the amendment to Rule 6(6)(1) of CCR 2004 (notification 50/08-CE dated 31.12.2008) would have retrospective effect or not? - Held that - The goods cleared to developer of SEZ are deemed to be export and for such clearances, provisions of sub-rule (1), (2), (3), (4) of Rule 6 of CCR 2004 would not apply and cons.....


2016 (1) TMI 842 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Mungi Engineers P. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik

Entitlement to Refund claim denied - whether the duty has been paid twice on the scrap and if so whether the appellant is entitled to the refund claim or not? - Held that - On the one hand the appellant is stating that the scrap only came back from job workers premises; that the enclosed invoices indicating that the removal has taken place under the assessee s own premises. The commissioner also observed that the appellant has admitted to have in.....


2016 (1) TMI 841 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Goyal Ispat Ltd. Versus CCE, Chennai

Determination of ACP on the re-rolled products manufactured and cleared by the appellants under Section 3 (A) - Held that - On scrutiny of the provisional ACP order dated 12.09.1997 and the final order dated 03.04.1998, the Commissioner has fixed the quantity as 14187.978 MT. On perusal of the verification report dated 23.09.97 by the jurisdictional range authorities, we find that the value of nominal diameter and other parameters were certified .....


2016 (1) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Metro Electrical Pvt Ltd, Shri Sandeep Garg, Shri Vinod Garg Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi

Redemption fine along with penalties - clandestine removal - non-duty paid stock - Held that - As out of total seized goods of ₹ 73,28,787/-, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that goods amounting to ₹ 18,27,926/- is liable for confiscation on the ground that M/s. Metro was not able to show the invoices for the same. The appellant has contended that they are receiving wire and cables of spools and selling the wire and cables aft.....


2016 (1) TMI 839 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s. Rosana Tools & Others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

Improper availment of benefit of small scale exemption under notification no. 8/98 dated 2nd June, 1998 - demand and interest thereof along with penalties imposed - whether the lower authorities were correct in including an amount received by the appellant for discharge of duty liability on the allegation that the said amount was received for manufacturing activity or otherwise? - Held that - On perusal of the invoices, it transpires that the mai.....


2016 (1) TMI 832 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus M/s. Dhariwal Industries Ltd.

Penalty imposed on demand not sustainable - clandestine removal of the goods which were in contravention of various Central Excise Rules - Held that - The show cause notice issued to the respondents clearly and unequivocally accepts the fact that demand of duty liability cannot be sustained as the demand for duty in show cause notice is beyond the period of 5 years. Provisions of section 11 A of the Central Excise act 1944, mandates the Departmen.....


2016 (1) TMI 831 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

M/s Kanti Chemical Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur

Correct amount of duty payable as per the compounding scheme - Re-determine the duty liability in terms of the deeming provision as per proviso to Rule 8 - Held that - It is an admitted fact that the appellants did make ₹ 0.50/- pouches alongwith ₹ 1/- pouches during the impugned period. Though prima facie such situation will attract the proviso to Rule 8, when a combined reading is made of the provisions of Rule 5, Rule 9 and Rule 8,.....


2016 (1) TMI 820 - SUPREME COURT

Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Hindustan National Glass And Industries Limited

Valuation - inclusion of notional interest in advances - Depression of assessable value of the goods - short payment of duty - respondent-assessee had obtained certain advance sums from some companies/users to supply the bottles and on that count it had granted 3-4 per cent discount - Held that - In the present case, there has to be application of mind by the tribunal regard being had to the amount of money paid by purchasers, namely, M/s. Coca C.....


2016 (1) TMI 819 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Ellenbarrie Industrial Gases Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III

Inadmissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods - Penalty imposed - Held that - Initially the claim of the appellant was that the cenvat credit would be admissible on cylinders as capital goods . Later, major portion of the demand was dropped accepting the plea of the Appellant that it is admissible as inputs . Also, on scrutiny of the de-novo order passed by the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority, I do not see any reas.....


2016 (1) TMI 818 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited Versus CCE, Trichy

Erroneous availment of CENVAT credit in respect of maintenance of green belt to reduce pollution - Held that - When appellant is manufacturer of cement and control of pollution in factory area is an indispensable necessity. Therefore, CENVAT credit on that count is allowed. BR BR Outdoor catering service - disallowance of CENVAT credit against the appellant - Held that - There is no finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal that service.....


2016 (1) TMI 817 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Racold Thermo Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I

Cenvat Credit of Service tax - whether the appellant has availed the Cenvat Credit of Service tax paid on the amount received by them from their employees for availing the services of canteen and whether extended period can be invoked for demand of such ineligible Cenvat Credit? - Held that - The issue on merits as to eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on the Service tax paid of the amount collected from their employees, the issue is now settled .....


2016 (1) TMI 816 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s MALHOTRA CABLES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Disallowance of Cenvat credit - penalty imposed equal to the said credit amount - Held that - In the absence of any dispute about the receipt of inputs under the cover of the invoices issued by the supplier carrying duty payment details, credit availed by the recipients cannot be denied. - Decided in favour of assessee.


2016 (1) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Neelam Steels, Shri R.P. Handa Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana

Allegation of fraudulent export of goods to Nepal - demanding duty and denial of cenvat credit along with interest and imposing penalty on both the appellants - Held that - As per the condition IV of the said notification no. 45/2001-CE(NT) dated 26.06.2001 the goods were required to be presented before Nepalese custom office and who has to endorse the certificate of the goods received in Nepal and is required directly sent to the officer of the .....


....6........
 
 
 

what is new what is new

Latest

Featured

Experts

Subscription

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || 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 Website