Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2010 2010 2010 (10) Central Excise - 2010 (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 161 to 166 of 166 Records

• 2010 (10) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of delay - appeal was filed beyond 90 days - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the application - on the ground that under the provision of Section 35 H of the Central Excise Act, 1944, he has power to condone the delay only up to 30 days and not beyond 30 days - Held that: - In the case of Singh Enterprises Vs.Commissioner, C. Ex, - under section 35 H the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 30 days - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Tubes seized at the time of inspection made by Central Excise Authority - Additional Commissioner has confiscated the seized tubes and allowed the party to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine - and confirmed the demand of duty - also imposed as penalty under section 173Q - appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) reduce the demand of duty - - Held that: - determination of redemption fine and penalty is the matter of estimate and does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Remand - Whether the Tribunal is justified in remanding the matter on the ground that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was not correct in passing the final order in the appeal on merits without mentioning about the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts under Section 35-F of the Act - Held that: - Tribunal has committed an error in remanding the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh. When an appeal has been filed on merits, challenging the decision made by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the same has to be decided on merits. Admittedly the appeal has been preferred by the department against the order which ends in favour of the assessee. Such an order cannot be set aside on extraneous grounds than on merits, especially when no plea has been taken on the ground of maintainability.

  the proviso to Section 35-F of the Act, gives ample power to the Commissioner of Central Excise and to the Appellate Tribunal to waive the pre-deposit. When such a power is given enabling an applicant to prefer appeal to the Tribunal, nothing prevents the Tribunal from excising such power in favour of the assessee concerned, more so, when he is armed with an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Manufacture - Classification of goods - unprocessed knitted or crocheted fabrics - exemption under notification no. 6/2000 - is whether the processes of shearing and back-coating which do not figure in Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act, would fall within the ambit of "any other process" referred to in the said note - Held that: - It is well settled that general terms following particular expressions take their colour and meaning as that of the preceding expressions, applying the principle of ejusdem generis rule, therefore, in construing the words "or any other process", the import of the specific expressions will have to be kept in mind - Therefore, the processes, with which we are concerned in the present appeals must take their colour from the process of bleaching, dyeing, printing, shrink- proofing, tentering, heat-setting, crease-resistant processing, specifically mentioned in the note. It is evident that when a grey fabric is subjected to any of these processes, a permanent or lasting change is brought about in the fabric. - said processes do not amount to "manufacture" in terms of Note 4 of Chapter 60 of the Tariff Act

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Cenvat Credit - Input Services - 2(l) of CCR - catering services - Held that: - the substantive part of the definition "input service" covers services used directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products, whereas the inclusive part of the definition of "input service" covers various services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final products. In other words, the definition of "input service" is very wide and covers not only services, which are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products but also includes various services used in relation to the business of manufacture of final products, be it prior to the manufacture of final products or after the manufacture of final products. To put it differently, the definition of input service is not restricted to services used in or in relation to manufacture of final products, but extends to all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product.

  Services having nexus or integral connection with the manufacture of final products as well as the business of manufacture of final product would qualify to be input service under Rule 2(l) of 2004 Rules. - all services used in relation to the business of manufacturing the final product are covered under the definition of `input service' and in the present case, the outdoor catering services being integrally connected with the business of the manufacture of cement, credit of service tax paid out on catering services has been rightly allowed by the Tribunal. - However, once the service tax is borne by the ultimate consumer of the service, namely the worker, the manufacturer cannot take credit of that part of the service tax which is borne by the consumer. - proportionate credit to the extent embedded in the cost of food recovered from the employee/worker not allowed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Concessional rate of duty - superior kerosene - notification no. 5/98 - Held that: - The expression "ordinarily" may mean "normally", but, the said expression must be understood in the context in which it has been used. - it becomes abundantly clear that the word "ordinarily" implies that the kerosene must be ordinarily used for illumination purposes, and it would be immaterial if the kerosene is also used for other domestic purposes - it is plain that the benefit of concessional rate of duty extends only to that variety of kerosene that: (i) has a smoke point of 18mm or more, and (ii) is ordinarily used as an illuminant in oil burning lamps. It is manifest that these two conditions are conjunctive, and therefore, the twin conditions need to be satisfied in order to avail of the concessional rate of duty

  ---

1 ....56789