Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2009 2009 2009 (10) Central Excise - 2009 (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 182 Records

• 2009 (10) TMI 689 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... rly, the weighment of kandi was undertaken on the presumption that every bag contained 34.0 Kgs. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that there was no other evidence on record to show that the Respondent had manufactured the biris which were cleared without payment of duty. The only contention of the Revenue is that as the stock of raw materials was found short, therefore the demand is sustainable. 5. We find that there is no evidence on record produced by the Revenue to show whether actually each bag was weighed to arrive at the total stock position on the date of visit of the Officers. There is also no evidence on record to show that the goods were manufactured and cleared without payment of duty by the Respondent. In these circumstances, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. The Cross Objection filed by the Respondent also stands disposed off in the same line. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 686 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ibunal) wherein it has been held that the programmer for washing machines merit classification under SH 9032.89 and not under CTA sub-heading 8537.10. We note that the Department has not been able to satisfy us that washing machine panels on which the parts in dispute are fitted, are panels equipped with two or more apparatus of Heading 85.35 or 85.36 so as to qualify for coverage under Heading 85.37. Since the panel itself has not been established to be the kind of panel referred to and covered by Heading 85.37, the parts of such panel cannot fall for classification under Heading 85.38. We, therefore, reject the claim of the Revenue that the classification of the disputed items fall under Heading 85.38 and uphold the impugned order of classification of the items under CET sub-heading 8540.90 and reject the appeal. The cross-objections are only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Department rsquo s appeal and therefore rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 684 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... accounting of raw materials as well as their dispatch to the job workers, the penalty under Section 11AC is attracted. Therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is upheld. Lower authorities did not give option to the appellants to pay penalty to the extent of 25 of duty within 30 days. Therefore, in terms of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Swati Chemicals Industries and Others being order No. A/1556-1576/WZB/AHD/2009 dated 21-7-2009 2009 (248) E.L.T. 421 (Tri. - Ahmd.) and also the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Ahmedabad v. M/s. Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Limited - 2009 (239) E.L.T. 439 (Guj.) 2009 (93) RLT 471 (Guj.), an option is required to be given to the appellants to pay the dues (balance of duty if any), interest and penalty within 30 days from the order of this Tribunal. If duty, interest and penalty are paid, penalty is reduced to 25 of the duty amount. 7. Appeal is disposed of in above manner. (Dictated in the Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 682 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e received by the customers, no notional interest can be charged out of such advance would be includible in the assessable value of the goods. 3. We find that very nominal advance of about 10 of the value of goods is taken by the present Respondent from the new/unknown customers as security deposit as the goods are tailor made and there is no nexus between the sale price of the goods and the advance received by the customers. Hence we find no infirmity in the impugned order and the Appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 680 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - validity of demand in view of the financial hardship faced by the assessee

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 679 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Natural justice - the order of the Settlement Commission dated 11-2-2008 (Annexure A.2) has also not been taken into account by the Tribunal - Held that: - this Court could admit the appeal only on a substantive question of law as envisaged u/s 35G of the CEA, 1944 - the appellant is relegated to the remedy of filing rectification application before the Tribunal - appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 675 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t of the definition of ldquo input service rdquo should be one which should satisfy the essential requirements of the main part of the definition. Contextually, I may observe that the above view has since been approved by the Apex Court. Yet another finding recorded in the final order is that, in respect of the travel agents service and tourist taxi service, no evidence was adduced by the appellant to substantiate their claim that these services were used in or in relation to the manufacture/clearance of excisable goods. The appellant has found fault with this finding as well. The only remedy, it appears, for the appellant if aggrieved, is a statutory appeal against the Tribunal rsquo s order, as rightly pointed out by the SDR. 2. The present application does not satisfy the requirements of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, nor does it bring out any valid reason to invoke the said provision of law. 3. In the result, this application is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 668 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Cenvat credit on the GTA for utilisation of the same against excise duty liability. 2. Shri V.K. Saxena, Ld. Jt. CDR supports the order of the Authority below and submits that the documents are subject to scrutiny as to the delivery point in terms of contract and whether transportation was made in accordance with the conditions of agreement. Once it is found that contractual obligation required FOR destination only in those cases Service tax related to transport charges paid may entitle the Appellant to Cenvat credit subject to other provisions of law. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Prima facie, it appears that there was contractual obligation on the part of the Appellant to make the delivery of the goods at the address of the buyer, this ground alone is sufficient to consider the case of the Appellant, prima facie for waiver of the pre-deposit. Accordingly, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit during pendency of Appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 655 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund of unutilised Modvat credit due to export of entire production by 100% EOU - time limitation - Held that: - the strict law of limitation provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act would not apply to the claim of refund claimed pursuant to notification issued under Rule 57F. It is in our opinion procedural in nature rather than mandatory - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 629 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Whether respondent is entitled to abatement in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 when the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that one cannot go by general implication that wholesale price would always mean cum duty price particularly when the assessee had cleared the goods on the basis of exemption notification – Held that:- Tribunal has held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Act which was obtained during the relevant period

  Whether remanding of the case by the CESTAT to the adjudicating authority for the consideration of modvat benefit is correct when Modvat credit has already been allowed in Order-in-Original by the adjudicating authority on the basis of available records, after verification – Held that:- remittal order is put in issue on the ground that it has been already considered and denied when the entire entitlement of the modvat benefit was originally considered. The only issue for which the matter had been remitted back to the original authority is whether the assessee is entitled to modvat credit, even that order of remittal has been granted by imposing a condition that the assessee should establish the claim by producing the documents showing payment of duty on the related inputs, remittal order is not in any way prejudicial to the interest or the Revenue to adjudicate the matter on appeal under Section 35(q) of Central Excise Act which requires question of law much less substantial question of law for entertaining the appeal, Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 623 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund - penalty under Section 11AC - payment of duty at the time of the visit of the preventive officers to their factory on 23-12-2003 yet the fact remains that the duty was paid on the directions of the preventive officers. Such payment cannot be considered due to the own volition by the appellant. The very fact that the appellant contested the demand indicates that the payment made by them was involuntary and was forced upon them by the preventive officers - Held that:- payment of duty made by the appellant under protest. Hence, the time-bar will not apply. The appellant is entitled to the refund. order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 606 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Application for rectification - It is no doubt true that on behalf of the respondents, the learned counsel has pointed out to us that initial order was remanded earlier by the Tribunal to the A.O. only for the purpose of de novo consideration in so far as calculations are concerned and therefore, A.O. had rightly restricted himself in terms of the order of remand to only calculations which the Tribunal has accepted - Considering the contentions raised by the appellants as mentioned above, the points raised by them ought to have been decided and considered - Appeals disposed of

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 603 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Application of stay - Classification - Demand - It is well settled that no product is “goods” unless shown to be marketable by the department - The only argument advanced before the Tribunal was that the three items were mentioned as “goods” in the dictionary and in the excise tariff and Mercuric Acetate (MA) was also mentioned as one of the items entitled to drawback in Duty Drawback Rules - there is no evidence whatsoever that the mixture of graphite and clay is at all marketable - The department failed to produce any evidence that the goods are marketable - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 573 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand and penalty - whether the cast articles were subjected to machining or not during the relevant period - no other material on record to establish - no investigation done in this regard by the Department - findings arrived at by the Commissioner to justify the denial of benefit to the appellants under Notification No. 223/88 in relation to the product in question for the relevant period cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside - demand for duty cannot be sustained - penalty does not arise

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 571 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Cenvat/Modvat – electricity being intermediate goods used in manufacture of final product - dispute is about CENVAT credit of duty paid for furnace oil meant for generation of electricity - furnace oil is never received in the factory of production but goes directly to job worker and as Respondent does not have any captive power plant, CENVAT credit is not available on it – Held that: - inputs or raw material can be directly forwarded to job worker for production of intermediate goods - No substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 564 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Arrest – Power of revenue officers - Section 18 of the Act inter alia provides that all arrests made under the Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 relating to arrests made under the Code. Section 13 confers a substantive power of arrest on a Central Excise Officer akin to the power conferred on the police under Sections 41 and 42 of the Code, on a private person under Section 43 and on a Magistrate under Section 44 of the Code Held that: - under Section 13 of the Central Excise Act empowers the Central Excise Officers to arrest a person whom he has reason to believe to be liable to punishment under the Act without issuance of warrant and without registration of an FIR or a complaint before the Magistrate

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 559 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Claims for rebate - made more than one year after the date of shipment of the goods - authority has no power or jurisdiction to entertain the claim for refund after expiry of the period of one year - Held that: - claim for rebate within one year from the relevant date as is required under Section 11B of the Act - claim for rebate within one year from the relevant date as is required under Section 11B of the Act - claim rejected

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 557 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Additional evidence - additional evidence can be taken into consideration only if they satisfy the test of relevance, veracity and credibility - Additional evidence in appeal is permissible if it is absolutely necessary for substantial justice between the parties - Held that: - on the prayer of a party that it wants to lead additional evidence in support of its claim, a contested order passed by the original authority cannot be set aside mechanically remanding the case before the original authority for fresh decision - applications are disposed of

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 553 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat credit – input service – telephone service – mobile bill of employees paid by company - circular requires that a person claiming Cenvat credit on mobile phone service should show that the mobile phone was used for providing output service or used in or in relation to manufacture of finished goods - connection between the use of the mobile phones and the manufacture/clearance of goods need not be direct, it can be indirect also as permitted by the definition of 'input service' given under Rule 2(l)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 551 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Refund - recovery of the dues of the year 1991 by an order made in the year 2008 - ordered to adjust the sum against the outstanding dues in the year1991 - Held that: - the recovery of the dues of the year 1991 by an order made in the year 2008 is not belated - petition is dismissed

  ---

1 ....2345678910