Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2018 2018 2018 (3) Central Excise - 2018 (3) 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 471 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 847 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Penalty u/r 26 of CER, 2002 - availment of irregular CENVAT credit - Held that: - if no demand survives on main appellant, the question of imposing penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the present appellant will not stand scrutiny of law - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 846 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - non-excisable goods - power generated out of bagassee - Rule 6 of CCR 2004 - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the amount of the refund of ₹ 9,95,016/-, which is disputed in this appeal by the appellant needs reconsideration by the First Appellate Authority - the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order has only reproduced the provisions of “Explanation I” to Rule 6 which was inserted by an amendment in 2015, but has not gone into detail, as to how explanation will apply to the case in hand and also the grounds of appeal before him - this issue needs reconsideration in the hands of the First Appellate Authority.

  The matter is remitted back to the First Appellate Authority to decide the same after following the principles of natural justice.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 845 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - xerox copies of invoices - MS plates, MS Flats, MS coils, angles, channels, TMT bars etc. - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the receipt of said items like MS plates, MS Flats, MS coils, angles, channels, TMT bars etc. and put to use for fabrication of storage tanks, boilers, support structures for plant & machinery - the appellant is eligible to avail cenvat credit on MS plates, MS Flats, MS coils, angles, channels, TMT bars etc.

  CENVAT credit availed on xerox copies of the invoices - Held that: - the matter may be remitted back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh as they will be able to produce the original copies of the invoices - matter on remand.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 844 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - renting of immovable property services - Held that: - when it is undisputed that the factory which was taken on rent is being put to use for manufacturing of final product on which duty liability is discharged, the denial of credit of service tax paid on renting of immovable property services seems to be totally incorrect proposition when the factory is functioning from the rental premises, it has to be held that services are utilised for manufacturing of excisable goods.

  Reliance placed on Circular dated 04.01.2008 is totally misplaced, as that circular clarifies about eligibility to avail CENVAT credit of service tax paid on commercial or industrial construction services which are used for construction of immovable property or otherwise.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 843 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - MS rods, TMT bars, MS Angles, Channels etc. - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the receipt of these inputs and consumption thereof for the stated purposes - Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has specifically held that these items are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 842 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - MS Angles, Shapes, Sections, Plates, Rods, Rounds, Beams, Joists and H.R. Coils/Sheets - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the receipt of these inputs and consumption thereof for the stated purposes - Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has specifically held that these items are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 841 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - HR Plates, Base Plates, MS Channels, MS plates, Angles etc - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact that these items were received in the factory premises and consumed for fabrication of various frame works for lift operation, furnace control room etc. - Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has specifically held that these items are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 840 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - HR Plates, Base Plates, MS Channels, MS plates, Angles etc - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact that these items were received in the factory premises and consumed for fabrication of various frame works for lift operation, furnace control room etc. - Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has specifically held that these items are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 839 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - credit is deniable and the invoices issued by their head office is incorrect as the invoices are issued by the head office who has no input service distributor (ISD) registration certificate - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Doshion Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [2012 (10) TMI 952 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that In the absence of any legal requirement to avail credit based on the services received during the relevant time and the procedural irregularity has to be ignored and the demand confirmed has to be set-aside on this ground - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 838 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Demand of duty - products arising when crude vegetable oil into refined vegetable oils, like Gums/Soap Stock/Wax/muddy/Liquid Sludge/Palm Fatty Acid Distillate etc. - Held that: - an identical issue in the case of M/s Ricela Health Foods Ltd., and Others [2018 (2) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] were before the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, where it was held that the appellants are eligible for exemption under N/N. 89/1995 CE dated 18.05.1995 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - export of exempted goods - common inputs and input services and manufactured dutiable as well as exempted goods - Held that: - The ratio of the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Repro India Ltd., [2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] would squarely covered in their favor of assessee, where it was held that in such case where goods are exported, direction by revenue to the petitioner to pay 10% of sale price of exempted goods u/r 6(3)(b) is not justified. If the exempted products are exported outside India the provisions of Rule 6(6)(v) of CCR are applicable.

  Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 836 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Benefit of N/N. 64/95-C, dated 16.03.1995 - Revenue authorities were of the view that these goods which are cleared by appellant claiming the benefit of N/N. 64/95-C cannot be considered as ship builders as the goods were used for construction of ships by Indian Navy - Held that: - for the clearances made from 11.04.2002 to 28.02.2003 were done so, without such certificate, hence claiming the benefit of N/N. 25/2002-CE, dated 11.4.2002 does not arise - benefit rightly denied.

  Time limitation - Held that: - the demand of duty liability for the period beyond one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice is hit by limitation and demand needs to be set aside - Lower authorities will recalculate the demand within the limitation period and inform the appellant to discharge the same alongwith interest.

  Penalty - Rule 25 of CER 2002 - Held that: - the appellant being a Government organization, could not have had any intention to remove the goods without payment of duty and more specifically when they have subsequent clearances, produced various certificates issued by Navel authorities indicating that these goods are used as stores in the ship - This could be the mis-interpretation and mis-conception of N/N. 64/95-C. - penalty set aside.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 835 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - TMT Bars, TOR steel and other bars, MS plates, MS angles, SS sheets, HR sheets, supporting structures, MS coils/plates, MS joists, HR coils, Floor/GI gratings, Galvanised step treads, Galvanised floor grills - Held that: - an identical issue in respect of Thiru Arooran Sugars vs. CESTAT, Chennai was decided by Honble High Court of Madras [2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], wherein Hon'ble High Court held in favor of the appellants therein, holding that items are eligible as inputs/capital goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 834 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Refund of excess payment of duty - duty paid under protest - Principles of natural justice - both the lower authorities have not gone into details of the case and the issue needs reconsideration on the face of the fact that Revenue officers had specifically stated in a correspondence to appellant that rubber tyres, interchangeable tyre treads, tyre flaps and inner tubes will not get covered under parts or accessories under N/N. 11/2006-CE. - the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 833 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  

  Ineligible deduction from the total turnover - demand of differential duty - Held that: - the first appellate authority has correctly came to the conclusion in setting aside the Order-in-Original - it was held that there is no suppression with intent to evade payment of duty - Mere non-mentioning of the second sale on the invoices would not suffice to prove that the unit is indulged in evasion of duty and deliberately suppressed the facts.

  The findings of the first appellate authority on limitations are correct - appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 832 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  Levy of excise duty - manufacture of Corrugated Boxes - case of the Revenue is that as principal manufacturer has supplied papers to the appellant for making corrugated boxes on which and same were cleared to the principal manufacturer without payment of duty - Held that: - it is an admitted fact that activity under taken by the appellant amount to manufacture but instead of paying duty on their goods the appellant is paying the service tax and same has been accepted by the Revenue for one activity and two demands cannot be confirmed against the appellant service tax as well as central excise duty - if Revenue has accepted service tax from the appellant, therefore, the Revenue cannot issue a show cause notice on demand of duty.

  Time limitation - Held that: - the SCN has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, as the appellant was paying service tax and the said activity known to the Department - the extended period of limitation is not invokable.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 831 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  Levy of excise duty - intermediate goods or waste/ scrap - whether untrimmed sheets/circles of Brass manufactured by the respondents were leviable to Central Excise Duty as an intermediate product arising in the course of manufacture of trimmed product and waste and scrap attracting Nil rate of duty being captively consumed or whether the said untrimmed sheets of brass were leviable to Central Excise duty?

  Held that: - Undisputedly untrimmed sheets of brass were being used in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts and, therefore, they were attracting Nil rate of duty and, therefore, the question of applicability of said N/N. 67/95 did not arise - demand do not sustain.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 830 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  Refund claim - Abatement claim - closure of factory - Held that: - In terms of Rule 10 of Pan Masala Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008, the assessee entitled to claim abatement of duty paid if their machines were remained in-operational continuously for 15 days - Admittedly, the machines were remained closed for continuous 15 days. In that circumstances, if the refund claim filed by the respondent for 13 days in the month of January, 2013, it cannot be said that the said refund claim cannot entertainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 829 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  Levy of excise duty - whether untrimmed sheets/circles of Brass manufactured by the respondent were leviable to Central Excise Duty or not? - Held that: - untrimmed sheets of brass were being used in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts and, therefore, they were attracting Nil rate of duty and, therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 828 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - various steel items and welding electrodes which has been used for fabrication/repair and maintenance of plant and machinery or not - Held that: - reliance placed in the decision in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein this Tribunal held that if the steel items has been used for fabrication of various steel items although and used in manufacture of excisable goods the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit - on the steel items the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit.

  In the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE [2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT], the Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court held that the welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

1 ....789101112131415........ 24