Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition 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-- 2025 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 >= 2 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 241 to 260 of 82128 Records

• 2025 (4) TMI 884
  

  Rebate claim filed by the respondent on the basis of CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) value instead of FOB (Free on Board) value was permissible under the Central Excise law and related notifications - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The SCN was issued on the ground that A.R.E.-1 value was higher than the FOB value due to inclusion of insurance and freight in the Transaction Value, in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Para 4.1 of Chapter 8 of the C.B.E.C.'s manual, which states that the value for the purpose of central excise duty under the rebate procedure shall be the transaction value and the same may be less than, equal to or more than FOB value indicated by the exporter in the corresponding Shipping Bill. The Revenue is of the view that the issue regarding “transaction value may be less than, equal to or more than the FOB Value” is only for the purpose of taking care of the variation of exchange rate on the preparation of Shipping Bills and actual clearance of the goods for export, but not for inclusion of other elements like insurance and freight.

  The respondent is eligible for the entire amount of duty paid on the CIF value by way of refund, in cash, as well as by way of re-credit of the balance amount.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The SCN has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation. In this regard, it is an admitted position that the issue of payment of duty on CIF value was known to the Department as the very same issue had been adjudicated vide order dated 31.03.2014. Thus, for the subsequent period, the demand cannot be raised by invoking suppression clause for the extended period of limitation, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. [2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT].

  Conclusion - i) Rebate claims must be based on FOB value, but excess duty paid on CIF value is refundable or re-creditable, ensuring revenue neutrality. ii) Extended period of limitation under Section 11A can be invoked only in cases of wilful suppression, fraud, or intent to evade duty; prior adjudication and departmental knowledge negate such invocation. iii) Mere inclusion of freight and insurance in transaction value without intent to evade duty does not constitute suppression or fraud.

  There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. adjudicating authority - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 883
  

  Clandestine removal - shoratge of finished goods and raw materials detected during stock verification - issuance of SCN after payment of duty and interest, and beyond one year from the date of detection of shortages - existence of mens rea or not - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The Officers of the D.G.C.E.I., Kolkata had visited the factory of the appellant- company on 07.03.2008 and verified the stock of finished goods and raw materials present. Upon verification, they had found a shortage of finished goods as well as raw materials. It is observed that the shortage has been worked out on the basis of eye- estimation and no actual weighment was conducted to verify the quantity of the finished goods and raw materials available in the factory. However, with a view to end the litigation, the appellant accepted the shortage of finished goods and raw materials as alleged and paid the duty involved on the finished goods and the amount equivalent to the CENVAT Credit availed on the raw materials. The said payment was done even before issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

  Where an assessee agrees to pay the differential duty before issuance of Show Cause Notice, Show Cause Notice need not be issued. In this case, it is observed that the duty along with interest has already been paid before issuance of the notice and the same stands appropriated in the impugned order.

  Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- The investigation has not brought in any evidence to establish that the finished goods and raw materials have been cleared clandestinely. However, with a view to end the litigation, the appellant accepted the shortage of finished goods and raw materials as alleged and paid the duty involved on the finished goods and the amount equivalent to the CENVAT Credit availed on the raw materials. Just because the appellant has accepted the liability and paid the duty, it cannot be presumed that the appellant has suppressed the facts from the department with an intention to evade the duty. As the appellant has paid the entire amount immediately after the detection of the shortage, much before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice and there is no evidence of any clandestine removal of the goods, the submission of the appellants that there is no mens rea or intention to evade the duty established in this case, agreed upon. Accordingly, no penalty is imposable on both the appellant-company and its Director on this issue.

  Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore-II v. Pushpadeep Enterprises [2012 (10) TMI 496 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein, under similar facts and circumstances, the Hon’ble High Court has held that penalty is not imposable.

  Conclusion - i) Where an assessee agrees to pay the differential duty before issuance of Show Cause Notice, Show Cause Notice need not be issued. ii) In the absence of any evidence of clandestine removal of goods and where the duty is paid immediately after detection of shortage, no penalty is imposable on the appellant-company or its Director.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 882
  

  Seeking refund of EC and SHEC paid on OID Cess during the period July 2004 to December 2013 - time limitation - refund claim filed much beyond the permissible time limit of 1 year from the date of payment of EC and SHEC per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - failure to establish whether burden of EC and SHEC was passed on or not.

  HELD THAT:- The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of National Institute of Public Finance & Policy [2018 (8) TMI 1524 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble High Court has observed 'the limitation contemplated under section 118 of the Excise Act would not be attracted in a case where any amount, even though it is not payable as service tax, is paid under a mistaken notion.'

  When the matter was referred to the Third Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Credible Engineering Construction Projects Limited [2024 (4) TMI 1041 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble Third Member Bench, held that the view expressed by the jurisdictional High Court would be binding on this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court has clearly held that when the refund claim of any amount deposited under mistake of law, the limitation provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, would not be attracted.

  Conclusion - In the case in hand, the EC & SHEC was paid by the appellant under the mistake of law, therefore, the time limit in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the refund claim filed by the appellant, cannot be dismissed as time barred.

  The impugned order is set asise - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 881
  

  Calculation of Excise Duty - inclusion of total quantity of Washed coal and Middlings supplied to the JSPL plant as Washed coal so as to raise the differential demand of central excise duty - invocation of extended period of limitation.

  Inclusion of total quantity of Washed coal and Middlings supplied to the JSPL plant as Washed coal so as to raise the differential demand of central excise duty - HELD THAT:- There is substance in the submission advance by the learned counsel for the appellant that till 24.03.2011 there was exemption available in respect of all coal raised in mines. It is thereafter that upon withdrawal of the exemption levy was introduced. This fact has been overlooked in the show cause notice as well as in the impugned order while confirming the demand raised for the quantity cleared in the month of March 2011. Even otherwise, the Principal Commissioner could not have ignored the returns filed by the appellant before the Coal Controller. These returns clearly bifurcate the ROM coal, Washed coal and Middlings. A conjoint reading of both the ER-1 returns and the returns filed before the Coal Controller leave no manner of doubt that the appellant had disclosed all the relevant facts.

  Invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Principal Commissioner merely observed that since the appellant had not reflected the correct “transaction value” in the ER-1 returns, the appellant suppressed material facts from the department and deliberately did not pay central excise duty on the appropriate transaction value of the coal extracted from mines. It needs to be pointed out that the appellant had, according to it’s wisdom and bona-fide belief, reflected the correct transaction value. According to the appellant, the value of Middlings was not be included in the value of Washed coal and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that merely because the value of Middlings was not included, the appellant had suppressed facts with intention to evade payment of central excise duty.

  It would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C. Ex. & Customs vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. [2023 (7) TMI 196 - SUPREME COURT]. The Supreme Court held that if an assessee bona-fide believes that it was correctly discharging duty, then merely because the belief is ultimately found to be wrong by a judgment would not render such a belief of the assessee to be malafide. If a dispute relates to interpretation of legal provisions, it would be totally unjustified to invoke the extended period of limitation. The Supreme Court further held that in any scheme of self-assessment, it is the responsibility of the assessee to determine the liability correctly and this determination is required to be made on the basis of his own judgment and in a bona-fide manner.

  It is, therefore, clear that the appellant had not suppressed relevant facts from the department and in any case it cannot be alleged that suppression was with an intent to evade payment of duty. The extended period of limitation as contemplated under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.

  Conclusion - The show cause notice was issued on 08.04.2016. It pertains to the demand from March 2011 to March 2015. Except for the period of one month i.e. March 2015, the rest of the demand is for the extended period of limitation. Thus, the demand for the period from March 2011 to February 2015 also deserves to be set aside as the extended period limitation could not have been invoked. It has also been found as a fact that central excise duty could not have been confirmed.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 880
  

  CENVAT Credit on the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid at a reduced rate of 2% on imported steam coal - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the appellant is eligible to take the credit of 2% CVD paid or the coal is no more res integra - This Bench, in the case of Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE & CGST Bolpur [2021 (12) TMI 956 - CESTAT KOLKATA], affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in [2022 (9) TMI 230 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has held that 'taking into consideration Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, there is no bar for availment of Cenvat credit in terms of the Rule 3(7) where duty paid under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. And Cenvat credit cannot be denied.'

  Circular No. 41 by 2013 CUS dated 21-10-2013 was issued by CBIC on this issue. This Circular clarifies that the CENVAT Credit can be availed on 2% CVD.

  Conclusion - The appellant is eligible to avail CENVAT Credit on the 2% CVD paid on imported steam coal.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 879
  

  Entitlement to continue with the Appeal and claim relief after order of NCLT approving the Resolution Plan has been passed - HELD THAT:- The Mumbai bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Alok Industries Ltd [2022 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT MUMBAI] analysed in detail Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 and the case laws on the issue including those cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant, observed that aforesaid Rule 22 should be applicable the moment the successor-in-interest with sufficient rights is appointed by NCLT to make an application for continuation of the proceeding.

  Conclusion - The appeals abate once the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is appointed, and no application is filed by the IRP for continuance of the proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

  The appeals abate as per Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 815
  

  Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of the opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Revenue to substantiate allegations against the appellants - Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The entire case has been build on the basis of statements of witnesses as well as the documents supplied by the source manufacturers. Further, the appellants from the very beginning has requested the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow cross-examinations of all those persons whose statements have been relied upon against them, but the cross-examinations have been denied by the Revenue without any justified reasons.

  This Tribunal in the case of M/s Lauls Ltd and ors vs. CCE, Delhi-IV [2023 (7) TMI 1113 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH], after following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Jindal Drugs Pvt Ltd vs. UOI [2016 (6) TMI 956 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has categorically held that it is mandatory to allow cross-examination of material witnesses whose statements are relied upon against the assessee.

  Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after affording the opportunity of cross-examination of the material witnesses and by following the procedure as prescribed in Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeals are allowed, accordingly, by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 814
  

  Calculation of duty payable by the appellant under Rule 8 or the 4th Proviso of Rule 9 of the Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 - abatement of duty under Rule 10 due to non-production for a continuous period of more than 15 days - effective rate of enhancement of duty.

  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the duty shall be payable by the appellant under Rule 8 of Chewing Tobacco and Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010 or 4th Proviso of Rule 9 of the said Rule, or not? - HELD THAT:- The issue in these appeals have been dealt by this Tribuinal in the case of Trimurti Fragrances Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III [2015 (8) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein this Tribunal has observed that 'The appellant in this case had used the four new machines installed w.e.f. 24-7-2013 for manufacture of the pouches of the new RSP - Rs. 4 per pouch, which was not being earlier manufactured by them and, therefore, the provisions of this Proviso would be squarely applicable. Therefore, in respect of these four machines, the duty at the rate applicable for the MRP of Rs. 4 would be chargeable only for 8 days from 24th July to 31st July and not for the entire month. The appellant have discharged duty liability on this basis only. Therefore, we hold that the duty demand of Rs. 1,51,35,483/- confirmed against the appellant on the basis that in respect of these 4 machines, the duty would be chargeable for the whole month, is not sustainable.'

  In the case of Arora Tobacco Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur I [2019 (1) TMI 901 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], this Tribunal relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Thakkar Tobacco Products Private Limited [2015 (2) TMI 606 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], held that the duty shall be payable in terms of 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules.

  The appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules.

  Effective date of enhanced rate of duty - HELD THAT:- The duty is not payable on enhanced rate of duty w.e.f.17.03.2012 in the Appeal No.E/75381/2014 in terms of Proviso 5 of Rule 9 ibid as the said proviso does not contemplate the scenario where the manufacturer permanently discontinues manufacture of the goods on the said retail sale price during the month.

  As the appellant has paid the duty in terms of 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, therefore, no demand is sustainable against the appellant.

  Conclusion - i) The appellant is liable to pay duty in terms of 4th Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules. ii) The appellant is entitled to abatement under Rule 10 for the non-production period from 15.03.2012 to 31.03.2012. iii) The enhanced duty rate effective from 17.03.2012 was not applicable as production had ceased before this date.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 813
  

  CENVAT Credit - transportation of goods by Indian Railways based on railway receipts - Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the Appellant has been availing CENVAT Credit in respect of transportation of goods by Indian Railways in accordance with Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 on the basis of railway receipts issued by the Indian Railways. With effect from 27.08.2014, sub-rule (fa) has been inserted in Rule 9 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

  This certificate is an additional document prescribed for allowing the CENVAT Credit. That does not mean that railway receipts, which contain all the necessary details required for availing the Credit, on the basis of which the Appellant had availed the credit, cannot be considered as a document for availing CENVAT Credit. It is observed that even after the introduction of sub-rule (fa) in Rule 9 (1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, railway receipts containing all the relevant factual details continue to be a relevant document for availment of credit.

  The STTG Certificate issued by the Railways has been prescribed as a document for availing credit with effect from 27.08.2014. However, railway receipts, which contain all details as prescribed under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, continue to be a relevant document for availment of credit. In the present case, the Appellant has availed the credit on the basis of railway receipts which contained all details as required under Rule 9 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for availing the CENVAT Credit. Accordingly, the Appellant is eligible for availing the credit amounting to Rs.15,86,077/- - the impugned order is set aside.

  Demand of interest on the amount of Rs.1,16,54,325/- - HELD THAT:- The said credit has been allowed by the ld. adjudicating authority on the basis of the STTG Certificate furnished by the Appellant. Thus, there is no irregularity in the availment of such credit. Accordingly, the demand of interest on the credit allowed is not sustainable. Consequently, the demand of interest on the amount of Rs.1,16,54,325/- allowed as credit in the adjudication order.

  Conclusion - i) The CENVAT Credit amounting to Rs.15,86,077/- availed in respect of transportation of goods by Indian Railways on the basis of railway receipts is allowed. ii) No interest is liable to be paid by the Appellant in respect of the amount of credit of Rs.1,16,54,325/- which was allowed in the Order-in-Original.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 812
  

  100% EOU - refund of unutilized CENVAT credit in relation to High Speed Diesel (HSD) and credit of Service Tax paid on Security Services - HELD THAT:- Since the issue of the refund claim of Cenvat credit of duty of Rs. 41,38,128/- paid by the appellant, while procuring HSD for their EOU is covered in favour of the appellant in their own case, the refund claim is sustainable. As regards the rejection of refund claim of Cenvat credit Rs. 2,42,192/- paid on security services, as held in catena of cases including Qualcomm India Pvt., Ltd. [2021 (11) TMI 72 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT], once it is admitted as eligible credit and if the respondent has reason to believe that, it is wrongly availed, Respondent could have proceeded against the appellant under Rule 14 Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the recovery of irregular CENVAT credit and cannot adjudicate the same while processing the refund claim, hence this refund claim is also sustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 811
  

  Recovery of Cenvat credit on duty-paid M.S. plates that were subjected to processes such as cleaning, drilling holes, etc., by their Jamshedpur unit - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra and covered by the judgment of this Tribunal in a series of cases including the case of Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore-I [2024 (5) TMI 324 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. This Tribunal after referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarvesh Refractories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC.Ex. & Customs [2007 (11) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] and CCE Vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd., [2008 (8) TMI 37 - SUPREME COURT] held that once the duty paid character of inputs had not been questioned, in the hands of the manufacturer when the duty was paid, the same cannot be questioned in the hands of the receiver.

  In the present case, the duty paid on the M.S. Plates at the Jamshedpur unit was held to be regular and Tribunal at Kolkata allowed cenvat credit on the inputs availed by the Jamshedpur unit. The present Show-cause notice has been issued by Dharwad unit for denial of the credit as a follow-up action of the Notice issue to their Jamshedpur unit - In the present case, since the credit availed by Jamshedpur unit has been held to be regular and admissible, therefore, the credit availed by the Dharwad unit cannot be denied.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 761
  

  Challenge to impugned recovery notice - demanding repayment of an erroneously refunded amount under Section 11A and Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - entitlement to a special rate/value addition as per the Notifications dated 27.03.2008 and 10.06.2008 - HELD THAT:- Having perused the order dated 24.03.2021, passed in M/s. Jyothi Labs Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 1039 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT], it is seen that issue involved in that case and in the present case appears to be similar on facts and law with only a difference that in that case the special rate application was filed before the appropriate authority and in the present case, the petitioner filed the special rate application before the Regional Officer, although addressed to the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati.

  As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner is directed to file special rate/value addition application claiming special rate/value addition before the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati, within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. On receipt of such application by the petitioner as directed herein above, the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati to consider the application. After arriving at the special rate, if any as per the order to be passed by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati, further process against the petitioner as per law, may be initiated.

  Conclusion - The petitioner is entitled to file a special rate/value addition application, which must be considered by the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Guwahati.

  Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 760
  

  Rejection of appeal on the ground of being time barred - HELD THAT:- The appellant has produced before me a copy of appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Mohali on 02.05.2018 in the form of “Form No. E.A. 1” which is a form of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35. The appellant has also produced the proof of Challan dated 01.05.2018 depositing mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5%.

  It is also found that as per the appellant, he has also sent the copy of the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), but the same was not proved by furnishing the proof of the receipt in the office of Commissioner (Appeals). It is also noted that when the copy of the appeal was filed in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Mohali, it was the duty of Assistant Commissioner to forward the same to the office of Commissioner (Appeals), but the same was not done and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal of the appellant being time barred holding that the appellant filed the appeal on 29.07.2021 before him.

  Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Premier Car Sales Ltd [2018 (12) TMI 2014 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] has remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) in identical facts wherein also the appellant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Similarly, by following the ratio of the said decision, the present matter also remanded back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to find out whether the appellant has filed copy of the appeal alongwith proof of pre-deposit before the Assistant Commissioner, Mohali and if the same is found to be valid, then the period, during which the appeal was kept pending with the Assistant Commissioner, should be excluded from the computation of the period prescribed for filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

  Conclusion - Matter remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issue of limitation afresh after considering the material placed on record by the appellant and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within the period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is further directed that if the appeal is found in time then the same may also decided on merits.

  Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 759
  

  CENVAT credit - process amounting to manufacture or not - credit taken under the invoices does not meet the requirement of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- As per the findings at Para 6.5 of the Order-in-Appeal there was no reason for the Commissioner(Appeals) to dismiss the Appeal filed by the Appellant. However, at Para 6.6 of the impugned Order-in-Appeal he has gone beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and dismissed the Appeal on the sole ground that the Appellant has not produced any evidence towards payment for the purchase of the goods, which was not the issue in the Show Cause Notice. On this ground itself the impugned order requires to be set aside.

  The Tribunal has consistently held that the duty paid at the end of the vendor cannot be questioned at the end of the user of the goods - In the case of AGP Food Products [2014 (2) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], the Tribunal has held that 'as the supplier of input is not party to the present proceeding and the assessment cannot be reopened at the recipient end. The impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside.'

  Conclusion - i) The scope of SCN is surpassed. ii) The duty paid at the end of the vendor cannot be questioned at the end of the user of the goods.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 758
  

  Availment of cenvat credit of additional duty of customs (CVD) paid by debiting the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrips during the period 2010-11 to 2011-12 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Learned Commissioner in the impugned order has reasoned that the adjustment of additional customs duty (CVD) paid by way of debiting the DEPB scrips cannot be considered as additional customs duty (CVD) paid and further held that when there is no payment of additional customs duty, the availment of credit on said CVD is irregular.

  There are no merit in the said reasoning of the learned Commissioner as it has been held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Tanfact Industries Ltd. [2009 (4) TMI 92 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] later affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in [2009 (10) TMI 892 - SC ORDER] that the goods cleared under DEPB scheme cannot be treated as exempted goods but it be treated as duty paid goods. Further, Board in its Circular No.18/2006-Cus dated 05.06.2006 clarified that 4% special CVD paid by debiting DEPB scrips is allowed to be taken as cenvat credit. Also, the N/N. 97/2009-Cus dated 11.09.2009 specifically mentions that the importers are entitled to avail the drawback or cenvat credit of additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act against the amount debited in the DEPB scrips.

  The Tribunal in the case of Styrenix Performance Materials Limited Vs. CCE&ST, Vadodara-II [2023 (5) TMI 384 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] after examining the issue at length held that cenvat credit cannot be denied when the additional duty of customs (CVD) was debited by utilising the DEPB scrip.

  Conclusion - i) The goods cleared under the DEPB scheme are duty-paid goods, and cenvat credit is admissible for additional duty of customs paid via DEPB scrips. ii) The invocation of the extended period of limitation requires clear evidence of suppression of facts, which is absent in this case.

  Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 757
  

  Availment of CENVAT credit - capital goods or not - steel items used for the construction of technological and supporting structures in a sugar manufacturing plant - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue was considered by this Bench in the matter of M/s. Sunvik Steels Ltd Vs. CCE [2013 (11) TMI 1081 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it is held that 'for the period prior to 07.07.2009, the appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the inputs viz., HR coils, HR Sheets, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels and MS plates, etc., and accordingly, demand confirmed is not sustainable; for the period 07.07.2009 to April 2011, in principle CENVAT credit on the inputs viz., HR coils, HR Sheets, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels and MS plates, etc., are not admissible. Consequently, the impugned order is modified, and the appeal is remanded to the original adjudicating authority to recalculate the demand for the period after 07.07.2009, if any, payable.'

  Similar view was upheld by the Tribunal in the matter of M/s BMM Ispat Limited Vs. Commr. C.Ex., Belgaum
  [2024 (4) TMI 671 - CESTAT BANGALORE] and in the matter of M/s Sri Renuka Sugars [2024 (6) TMI 294 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - Since the issue is squarely covered by the above decisions, it is found that the material used by the Appellant for support of structures and platform for machineries and equipment used in the factory are eligible for CENVAT credit.

  Invocation of Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 03.01.2013 and in the absence of any allegation regarding suppression of facts for evasion of duty, invocation of extended period of limitation is unsustainable.

  Conclusion - i) The steel items used for constructing and supporting manufacturing equipment qualify as capital goods for CENVAT credit. ii) The invocation of extended period of limitation is unsustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 756
  

  CENVAT Credit - trading activity - Demand of reversal of proportionate credit relating to exempted service - credit availed on 'Security Services', which is also a common input service used by them in relation to manufacture of dutiable goods and trading services - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the impugned order, adjudication authority rejected the same in a casual manner by quoting that; “however in the absence of evidence to prove that the parameters laid down in formula has been correctly followed, it is not inclined to take cognizance of the claim that the procedure under Rule 6(3A) has been followed. Therefore, the assesses are liable to pay the amount of 5% /6% as the case may be, of the value of exempted service in terms of Rule 6(3) (i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2011 to December 2014.” - it is found that without specifying the mistake or omission on the part of the appellant, while assessing the proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A), the same cannot be rejected.

  Invoking the extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There are strong force in the submission made by the appellant. As regarding reversal of proportionate cenvat credit on common security services, it was required to be made only from April 2011, when Rule 6(5) of Cenvat Credit Rules was omitted vide Notification No. 3/2011-CE (NT) dated 01.03.2011 w.e.f. 01.04.2011. Fact being so, since the appellant had fully reversed the cenvat credit availed against common input services under 'Courier' services and 'Telephone' services and proportionately as per Rule 6(3A) for the 'Security Service', the impugned order is prima facie unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

  Conclusion - i) Without specifying the mistake or omission on the part of the appellant, while assessing the proportionate Cenvat credit under Rule 6(3A), the same cannot be rejected. ii) The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without just cause, particularly when the appellant has demonstrated compliance with credit reversal requirements.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 755
  

  Levy of excise duty - manufacture or not - works related to 'Installation of structural Glazing', 'Aluminium Doors', 'Aluminium Partitions' and 'office interiors' - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that upon fabrication the impugned items become a part of civil construction. In such a situation, it is not sustainable to hold that there is a marketable new product emerging in between. Similarly, if the goods installed at site are capable of being sold or shifted as such, after removal from the base, then the goods would be considered to be movable and excisable. In the present appeal, the department has no case that the goods installed/structure erected can be shifted or dismantled to be movable property and, therefore, are excisable to duty. Further, they cannot be shifted or disassembled without causing damage to the components/ parts.

  Even as per the counsel it is has been rightly pointed out that if the curtain wall/AWs, cladding are pulled down or dismantled, it would result into scrap only. Considering the above facts and circumstances the activity of 'Installation of Structural Glazing work', 'Aluminium Doors', 'Aluminium Partitions' and 'Office Interiors' cannot be considered as manufacturing to confirm demand of duty along with interest and impose penalties.

  Conclusion - The appellant's activities do not constitute "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, as they did not result in a new, distinct, and marketable product. The installations were deemed part of immovable property.

  The impugned order is not sustainable, hence liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 754
  

  Wrongful availment of Cenvat credit - inputs used for manufacture of 'Aluminium Bus Bars' and 'Anode Stem' within the factory, which in turn, was captively consumed as capital goods for supply of heavy electric current and for electrolysis respectively in the pot line for the manufacture of dutiable final product i.e. Aluminium metal - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether cenvat can be availed on the intermediate product when the same is exempted, is no more re integra. Dealing with such CENVAT Credit under the provisions of erstwhile Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rues, 1944 the Delhi Tribunal in the case of HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LIMITED VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD [2002 (5) TMI 180 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] held that 'the well settled position about what is intermediate product and having regard to the fact that the appellants in their Form-I form (C/List) shows that bus-bar is captively consumed. We have no doubt in our mind that bus-bar is an intermediate product and is eligible to the benefit of credit of input itself in terms of Rule 57D(2) of C. Ex. Rules, 1944.' - the impugned order is set aside on merits and the Appeal is allowed.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There are considerable force in the appellant’s argument that the Show Cause Notice issued on 1.10.2004 for the CENVAT Credit taken during April, 2000 to February, 2001 is time barred. The appellant is an assessee since 1997 and has been taking the credit and filing the Returns. The case laws in respect of the CENVAT Credit eligibility on exempted intermediate goods are in favour of the party. Therefore, the Department has not made any case of suppression on the part of the appellant to fasten the extended period demand liability. Therefore, the demand is set aside even on account of time bar.

  Conclusion - i) The Appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the inputs used for manufacturing exempted intermediate products that were further used in dutiable final products. ii) The demand also set aside on the grounds of time bar, finding the extended period of limitation inapplicable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (4) TMI 753
  

  Method of valuation - valuation method used by the Appellant for inter-unit transfer of goods - Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra. In the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar-II, [2023 (5) TMI 720 - CESTAT KOLKATA], this Bench has held 'The duty paid by the Appellant would be available as credit to their sister unit. This the entire exercise is revenue neutral.'

  On an identical issue in the case of M/s H. V. Transmission Ltd. v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2023 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT KOLKATA], this Bench has held that 'We find that the issue is squarely covered by the cited decisions of this Tribunal, wherein it has been held that when the duty paid by the parent unit is eligible as Cenvat Credit to the receiving unit, the entire proceeding becomes revenue neutral.'

  Conclusion - Tthe valuation method used by the Appellant is consistent with legal precedents and that the principle of revenue neutrality is applied, rendering the demand for differential duty unsustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617........ 4107