Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 2007 (10) Central Excise - 2007 (10) 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 101 to 120 of 222 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 222 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appellants received Price Variation Bills (P.V.B) & paid differential duty - demand of duty raised u/r 8 of CER - it is clear that Rule 8 is only applicable at the time of removal of goods from factory or warehouse - in present case, PVB were raised due to Price Variation Clause after removal of the goods from the factory. So Rule 8 is not applicable - allegation that appellants have wrongly utilized the credit towards payment of duty against PVB is not sustainable – demand & interest set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 221 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Shortage of goods – non-maintenance of proper accounts – minimum penalty is Rs. 10,000 - adjudicating authority imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Rule 25 - reduction of the penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) less than Rs. 10,000/- is not sustainable - order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of reduction of penalty to Rs. 2,000/- is set aside - order of the adjudicating authority imposing penalty is restored - appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 218 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Appellant, job worker – as per Circular 306/22/97, duty liability is on principal manufacturer, not on job worker even if principal mfr. has not availed benefit u/not. 83/94 - liability of the principal manufacturer can’t be extinguished on ground that relationship between them is on a principal-to-principal basis - held that demand of duty on job worker for reason that raw material supplier has not followed provisions of Not. 214/86, is not correct – demand also time barred – no suppression

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 217 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Tribunal held that Revenue has failed to produce any evidence of clandestine removal & sale of goods - tribunal found that demand of duty on raw material found short is based on the presumption that the raw material must have been used in mfg. final products - suspicion cannot replace the requirement of proof by presuming that there was mens rea - jurisdiction of Tribunal u/s 35A & 35C is different from power of HC u/s 35G – revenue’s appeal dismissed – tribunal order is justified

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 216 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT
  

  Petitioner has also availed of the benefit of DEPB, therefore, under Rule 12(1)(b) rebate cannot be allowed simultaneously - restriction is kept because reimbursement of duty incidence cannot be allowed twice- petitioner has got benefit of DEPB and for the same goods, he is claiming rebate under Rule 12(l)(b), is not justified - present petition is not tenable in law and required to be dismissed with costs

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 215 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appellants, registered dealer – penalty u/r 173Q(1)(bbb) imposed on appellant alleging that he issued modvatable invoices to the buyers without supplying the material on ground that vehicle number is mentioned wrongly in invoice - there is no statement by appellant, supplier & recipient of the inputs that the appellant issued modvatable invoice without supplying the material – no material to prove that the appellant willfully entered incorrect particulars in the invoices – penalty not imposable

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 214 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Mfg. of sulphuric acid & fertilizers - cleared Sulphuric Acid partly on payment of duty & consumed captively - No duty was paid on captive consumption- alleged that the appellants used duty paid inputs Vandadium Pantaoxide on the exempted final product (Sulphuric Acid) - appellants reversed the credit of duty on inputs utilized in mfg. of exempted final product therefore, demand u/r 6(3)(b) is not sustainable since there is no relevancy that appellants didn’t maintain sufficient inventories

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 213 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Whether credit on polythene bags used for dispensing the materials necessary for undertaking batch-wise production in the factory can be allowed & whether they can be considered as inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of final products as per the erstwhile Rule 57-A -- scope of the term ‘inputs’ is very wide as interpreted by various judicial fora - polythene bags have indeed been used in mfg. of final product, though they may not directly form parts of products itself – credit allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 211 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Plastic crates, which were used in their factory premises for transportation, storing of raw materials & finished goods – SCN issued on ground that credit not admissible on plastic crates as these are not used in or in relation to manufacture of their final products – held that if manufacture of final product cannot take place without the process in question then that process is an integral part of the activity of manufacture of the final product hence credit cannot be denied on them

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 210 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Related person - Revenue proceeded against assessee to enhance the value of goods, raise demand & penalty – allegation is that assessee hadn’t declared their association & agreement with TDCEL in the mfg. & testing activities of TVs. & value had been deliberately suppressed by excluding mfg. cost - A joint venture with a Govt. corp. holding more than 25% of its shares can’t be held to have mutuality of interest with TDCEL – Both companies operated at arms length - revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 209 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  As per VR 2 (b), Assessee is required to pay duty at the price at which the greatest aggregate quantity is sold on a particular date when sale is made at different prices on same day – demand confirmed by comm.(A) is set aside, as assessment was provisional, assessee plea that there has been excess payment as well as short payments must be verified by revenue to arrive at the final amount of duty, if any liable to be paid or to refund – cash discounts allowable subjected to verification

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 205 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Contention of appellant is that the goods in question are forgings & are classifiable u/CH 7326.19 & entitled for the benefit of Not. 223/88 - revenue contended CH 87 & 84 as parts of the Automobiles - As the forgings cleared by the appellants are not used as such & the customers under take further processes of turning, the milling, drilling, grooving on them, therefore, the same cannot be held to be parts of Automobile – goods classifiable under heading7326.19

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 203 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Opted for SSI exemption u/not.08/01 & cleared goods at Nil rate of duty - assessee had correctly utilized the credit when these final products were chargeable to duty - there was no one to one relationship of the inputs used & final products manufactured - It has rightly been held that the credit of duty paid on inputs can’t be confined to a particular raw-material to which the credit is related & out of which a final product is manufactured – so assessee weren’t required to reverse the credit

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 202 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Not. 25/03 clears that only on the value of the grey fabrics credit can be taken – declaration filed disclosing the stock – appellants weren’t sure about the above fact so in decelerations, value of unprocessed goods were shown on the higher side – if assessee was not clear about the condition of notification he could seek the assistance of their jurisdictional authorities – as no help was sought by assessee, demand cannot be held to be barred by limitation – personal penalty vacated

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 200 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Use of inputs in dutiable & exempted goods - credit had been reversed related to exempted goods with interest - hence, the question of directing the assessee to pay 8% or 10% of the value of the exempted goods which runs to an exorbitant 340% is not justified and proper - plea of the appellants for availing the benefit as they have reversed the credit is required to be accepted in terms of the judgments cited by them - all these four appeals are allowed with consequential relief

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 199 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Revenue had proceeded to enhance the price of Molasses removed to Kutcha Pit - value of the molasses cleared to Kutcha Pit cannot be compared with the price of molasses stored in tanks - They are different clearances and the parameters followed by them are also different - Revenue is not justified in enhancing the value of the molasses cleared to the Kutcha Pit in comparison with the price of molasses cleared from storage tanks. The demand is set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 198 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Bought out items such as cable, cards, etc. used for installation of “Attendance Data Management Systems” are necessary for function of the system - duty has already been paid on all bought out items so value of these bought out items can’t be added to value of impugned systems - held that erection and commissioning charges are not includible in the A V of the machinery because sale value of any machinery is entirely distinct from the charges collected for erection and commissioning

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 197 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Application for recalling / rectification has been dismissed on the ground that the same would amount to an exercise in review jurisdiction - Before the Tribunal, matter proceeded on a concession - where the material on record was not considered, that would fall within the expression ‘rectification’ and not review - impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for rehearing the rectification application in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 195 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY
  

  Tribunal has passed an order in the matter of determination of rate of duty. On such determination of the rate of duty and considering the violation, penalty has been imposed - As per sec. 35G, CEA as the penalty is incidental to fixation of rate of duty, the appeals would not be maintainable before this Court but before SC

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 194 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Availment of refund two times - Earlier, the refund was availed by making a suo moto credit entry in the PLA - Thereafter, the appellant again obtained refund by encashing two cheques, which were issued in response to their two refund applications – penalty imposable u/s 11AC equal to wrongly availed refund – interest also chargeable under section 11AB

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 12