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 201 to 220 of 222 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 52 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Hepatitis-B Surface Antigen Bulk – Impugned product has property to produce antibodies which is the essential character of any vaccine so classifiable under Heading 30.02 – Determination of assessable value of vaccine should be on basis of cost + profit method of valuation

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 51 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Suppliers of Cotton Yarn to job workers, who converted the yarn in to bed sheets and towels on payment of charges, are not manufacturers of bed sheets & towels – Towels/bed sheets are marketable as such and came into existence at the premises of weavers – No manufacturing by appellant

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 50 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Related persons – Nothing on record to show that buyer Co. had interest in the business of appellant – Commonality of directors cannot be considered as companies are having mutual interest – Financial accommodation are purely commercial in nature – Demand on account of undervaluation is time-barred

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 49 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Modification works on moulds supplied by customers and clearance of modified moulds against payment of labor charges, does not amounts to manufacture – Credit on ‘injection moulding machine’ cannot be denied when it is used in testing and manufacturing components which are excisable

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 48 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Calcium Chloride Sludge emerging as waste in manufacturing of tri-chloro ethylene – Sludges generated in the course of manufacture of chemical products are only wastes which is not excisable – Impugned Sludges are not relatable to ‘pure calcium chloride’ to impose duty- Appeal of Revenue rejected

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 45 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Hepa Card/Strip – Exclusion clause of Heading 3822 indicated that diagnostic reagents can fall under 3002 as well – Hepa Card can be correctly considered as prepared animal blood in spite of emergence of anti-body in between and that the same is used for diagnostic purpose so classifiable under 3002

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 37 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Delay in filing appeal by Dept. – Order of appellate authority earlier accepted by Revenue but later opinion of Dept. changed and decided to file an appeal – No ground for condonation of delay

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 35 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Once the adjudication order is set aside by Tribunal, amount of pre-deposit should be refunded with in 3 months if stay is not granted – Tribunal allowed appeal by setting aside Comm(A) order on 9.11.01 – So interest is payable from 9.11.01

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 33 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund of amount paid as NCCD – Consignments on which NCCD was paid were cleared by them prior to exemption notification – So, benefit of notification was not available at the relevant time – Hence, refund can not be allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 26 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI
  

  Application of ‘COFEPOSA’ absconder/detenue should be entertained by ‘Settlement Commission’ as both are independent authority – Diversion of high value export goods to local market and low value, prohibited goods exported – Confiscation upheld – Full immunity from interest and penalty not granted

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT, PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Common inputs in manufacturing dutiable and non-dutiable goods – As per Rule 57C(2) and 57C(3), if inputs are intended to be used as fuel, credit is admissible even if separate accounts are not maintained

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 21 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat/Modvat – Department contended that since the appellant paid duty on exempted goods and not entitle to utilised the credit of said duty but as per appellant if the exported goods not dutiable entitle for refund under Rule 19(2) of CER, hence revenue exercise is neutral – Tribunal set aside the demand and allowed the credit to appellant

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 20 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Refund – Appellant claim for refund of duty paid under protest denied by the Commissioner (A) on the ground of the time bar and unjust enrichment – Appellant provide sufficient evidence in support of his contention – Refund claim allowed by the tribunal

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 19 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Dutiability – The respondent procures woven pile fabrics under chapter heading 5801.21 and subject the same to the different process can’t changed the Chapter Heading, hence do not amount manufacture – Hence duty demand not sustained

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 18 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand – Alleged that appellant while computing the total value of clearance, the value of raw material sent to the manufacture was not included but appellant mentioned that he is under bona fide belief that value of job charges only reflected in the declaration – Major part is time barred and a part within limitation period to be quantified

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 17 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  EXIM –DEEC scheme – Demand were raised on appellant on the ground of non-fulfillment of export obligation and diversion of raw material but appellant view is that they fulfilled export obligation subsequent to visit of the officers and also no diversion of raw material – Held that demand not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 16 - SC ORDER
  

  Interest – Question arises when the assessee being successful in a case entitle for interest on refund of pre-deposit made as a condition precedent for the hearing the appeal – Held, yes

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Exemption - Department contended that appellant is not entitle for benefit of Notification No.8/97-C.E. on the ground that the sizing material imported by appellant is raw material - Held that department contention was not correct and allowed the benefit of notification

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Deduction - Department contended that respondent is wrongly availed larger percentage of TOT for the purpose of assessable value - Held that department contention was not correct and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Department contended that deemed annual production would be determine by the capacity of the furnace but appellant can't agreed with it - Tribunal has confirmed the view of the department. High Court rejected the appeal since no question of law is involved. SC confirms HC view.

  ---

1 ....789101112