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

 

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 69270 Records

  • 2018 (4) TMI 756 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Raghuvar (India) Limited Versus C.C.E., Jaipur

    Maintainability of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - Held that - in the instant case, amount involved is less than ₹ 2 lakhs in each appeal - A s per Section 35B (proviso) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Tribunal can refuse to entertain the appeal where the demand/penalty is less than ₹ 2 lakhs (prescribed limit) - appeal not maintainable - appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 755 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Topworth Steels Pvt. Limited Versus C.C.E. And ST, Raipur

    Tax liability - fly ash generated by the appellant during the manufacture of sponge iron - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. vs. CCE&ST, Raipur 2017 (6) TMI 898 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that the fly ash produced during combustion of coal in the manufacture of electricity is a waste by-product. The same is not emerging out of any manufacturing process - tax liability do not arise. - CENVAT credit - rejected fini....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 754 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Hindustan Phosphates Pvt. Limited Versus C.C.E. Nnd ST, Indore

    Classification of goods - Di-Calcium Phosphate - Revenue has classified the goods under Chapter 28 of heading 28352500 of the Central Excise Tariff Act - appellant contested the said view and submitted that their product is correctly classifiable under Central Excise Tariff heading 23099090 - Held that - Chapter 23 clearly mentions an inclusive scope of heading 2309. It does not mean items other than what is mentioned in the note cannot be classi....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 753 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Mohit Engineering Versus CCE, Delhi-III

    Valuation - related party transaction - Whether appellant and EJIPL are related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act and whether the sale price of EJIPL is to be adopted for determination of duty on the appellant? - Held that - Related person as given in Section 4(4)(c) must be a person who is so associated with the assessee that they have interest directly or indirectly in the business of each other - it cannot be said t....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 752 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And ST, Bhopal Versus M/s. Bhopal Wire Pvt. Ltd.

    Valuation - paper covered aluminium /copper wire strips, etc. - clearance to sister unit - Held that - the present appeal by the Revenue simply pleads for remand of matter so that now they can consider CAS 4 valuation in proper prospective. The same is not tenable in view of the fact that original proceedings are for demand of differential duty. No process of valuation under CAS 4 was followed by the Revenue so that, the correctness can be confir....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 721 - SUPREME COURT

    Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Madhan Agro Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s Aishwarya Industries And Others

    Classification of goods - coconut oil in packings upto 2 litres/packings upto 500ml - While the assessee(s) contended that coconut oil in small packings is also classifiable as coconut oil under Heading 1513 the revenue claimed classification of the said products as hair oil under Heading 3305 while conceding that coconut oil in large packings i.e. beyond 2 Kgs. merited classification under Heading 1513 - Whether classifiable under Heading 1513 o....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 720 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Meerut-II Versus B.L. Agro Oils Ltd., J.V.L. Agro Industrial Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad, Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur Versus Mantora Oil Products Ltd., Shri Rahul Gupta, Mantora Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., Shri Siddartha Gupta, Kanpur Edible (P) Ltd., Shri Manoj Gupta, Vaibhav Edibles (P) Ltd., Shri Akhil Gupta, Dinesh Oil Ltd., Shri Dinesh Arora, R.P. Edible Oils Ltd, Shri Rakesh Agarwal and Shyam Vanaspati Oils Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow

    N/N. 89/1995-CE dated 18.05.1995 - benefit of notification on waste items being Fatty acids, Wax, Gums and Spent earth - manufacture of exempted goods - whether the appellants/respondents manufacturing Refined Vegetable Oil which is exempted under Notification, whether they are entitled to exemption on the items being Fatty acids, Wax, Gums and Spent earth under N/N. 89/1995-CE dated 18.05.1995? - Held that - similar issue decided in the case of ....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 719 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Zeon Steel Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent Raipur (CG).

    Clandestine Removal - shortage of sponge iron - it appeared to Revenue that appellant surreptitiously procured the aforementioned quantity of sponge iron from AIPL without cover of valid Central Excise invoices and used the same for unaccounted production of ingots and thereafter removed the same clandestinely during the period September, 2010 to December 2010. - Held that - allegations are based on statement of Director of AIPL, statement of tra....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 718 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s Electroparts India Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Venugopal Engg. Ltd.) , M/s Domebell Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Videocon Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

    Validity of SCN - Whether issue of SCN for recovery of duty allegedly short paid on the ground of undervaluation, under the provisions of the law, Section 11A of Central Excise Act read with Rule 9B of CER 1944, was valid? - whether the SCN issued, pending the finalization of provisional assessment is valid? - Held that - the show cause notice issued prior to finalization of provisional assessment, when admittedly the assessees were under provisi....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 661 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus Sheth & Sura Engineers (P) Ltd. C.D. Sheth

    Excisability - pipe used for erection, installation and laying of pipeline - whether the respondent has manufactured pipe and whether the same is excisable and liable for duty? - Held that - the pipe is manufactured which is movable, hence marketable and subsequent to the manufacture, it is taken to the site where the pipe has to be laid down and that the laying process is carried out - the respondent has carried out the manufacturing of pipe whi....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 660 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    JSW Steel Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I

    CENVAT credit - GTA Services - place of removal - Held that - the issue of availability of cenvat credit on outward GTA has been settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. 2007 (3) TMI 738 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was held that the credit is not admissible from the place of removal to buyer s premises w.e.f. 1.4.2008 - the credit taken after 1.4.2008 should be prima facie available - During the period prior to....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 659 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

    Demand of Interest - time limitation - Revenue is essentially in appeal against the order on the ground that the provisions of Section 11AB can be invoked in absence of demand of duty paid under Section 11A(2) or paid under Section 11A(2B) - Held that - no demand of interest can be made beyond the period of limitation when the Revenue has failed to show any ground for invocation of longer period of limitation - reliance placed in the case of COMM....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 658 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s Shri Adinath Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III

    Excisability - manufacture - scrap of old and used machinery cleared from their factory - Held that - There is no doubt waste and scrap generated during machining would be excisable - The Order-in-Original does not give any detail findings regarding process which resulted in generated of items Waste and scrap generated out of manufacturing M.S. heavy scrap and Waste and scrap M.S. fabricated pipes, angles, channels etc. - The original Adjudicatin....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 657 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    CCD, Mumbai-II Versus M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

    Rectification of mistake - there is an error to the extent that the Order-in-Original No. 48/Commr/M-II/07 dated 10.12.2007 was not mentioned hence the same may be corrected - Held that - there is an apparent error in the preamble of the order in as much as only one Order-in-Original was mentioned, therefore in the preamble the words and figures arising out of Order-in-Original No. 25/2006 dated 06.10.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Ex....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 656 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    XLO Machine Tools Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III

    CENVAT credit - capital goods and inputs, which were subsequently written off as obsolete - the obsolete capital goods and the inputs were written off in the year 2005 - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of PCOMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus INDIAN PETROCHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. 2007 (8) TMI 359 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY , where it was held that The Tribunal in a long line of judgments where goods have been shown as written off....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 655 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Exide Industries Ltd Appellant Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Raigad

    CENVAT credit - whether the appellant is required to pay an amount equivalent to 6 of the value of the goods cleared which the department claims as trading activity or otherwise? - Held that - If an input is cleared from the factory of the appellant on reversal of CENVAT credit availed on such inputs, the question of invoking the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not arise as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 654 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Sandoz Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur

    Penalty u/r 15(2) of CCR 2004 read with Section 11AC of the CEA 1944 - wrong availment of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(3) (i) of the CCR 2004 - common input services - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Sangrur Agro Ltd, 2010 (2) TMI 438 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT , where it was held that section 11AC of the Act would be applicable only if there is an attempt to evade duty. Case relates to reve....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 653 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-I Versus M/s Max Prints

    Refund of CENVAT credit - time limitation - export of goods - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 read with N/N. 227/12 dated 18.6.2012 - Held that - the limitation would start from the end of the quarter, during which exports have taken place - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue........ + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Foseco India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Pondicherry

    Classification of goods - Sifton and Sifteron - Revenue sought to classify the products under CETH 69.11, attracting 30 of duty - appellant claims that product should be rightly categorised under CETH 3823 during the relevant time, as miscellaneous chemical products , attracting 20 duty - penalty. - Held that - The signed notification issued by the Ministry clearly includes CETH 6911 and is clearly covered by Sl. No. 12, attracting 300 of duty. A....... + More


  • 2018 (4) TMI 612 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    M/s. Aspire Exports Pvt. Ltd, Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-IV

    Refund claim - unjust enrichment - case of appellant is that Since the transaction is of job work and not of sale there is no question of passing of incidence of duty to the principal - whether the refund claim of appellant is hit by unjust enrichment or otherwise? - Held that - duty was deposited during investigation with reference to removal of goods manufactured by appellant on job work basis - the goods were undisputedly dutiable therefore pa....... + More


....6........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


|| 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