Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2017 2017 2017 (9) Central Excise - 2017 (9) 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 261 to 280 of 412 Records

• 2017 (9) TMI 688 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Suo-moto re-credit of CENVAT account which was earlier reversed - Held that: - the issue is of suo moto availment of CENVAT credit on which a separate SCN dt. 2.8.2001 was issued on the ground that the appellant availed the CENVAT credit without physically received the input - Since the main issue i.e. availment of CENVAT credit without physical receipt of input has attained finality against the appellant in the proceedings of SCN dt. 2.8.2001 and no further appeal against the Tribunal’s order was filed by the appellant the issue stand finally decided against them - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Evasion of duty - CENVAT credit - omission of Rule 56A - Held that: - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having been omitted - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 619 - SC ORDER
  

  Condonation of delay - Refund claim - the decision in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Noida Versus M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - Delay condoned - Leave granted.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 618 - SC ORDER
  

  SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - Clandestine removal of goods - the decision in the case of M/s. Nova Industries (P) Ltd. Versus CCE- Chandigarh [2015 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed - Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as in appeal.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 617 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  100% EOU - Deemed export - whether the CESTAT was right in reversing the judgment of the adjudicating authority by holding that respondent assessee who was 100% EOU unit was not required to pay duty on its domestic clearance against foreign exchange remittance? - Held that: - In case of Maruti Cottex Limited [2004 (12) TMI 215 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the Tribunal held that the clearances to DFRC holders and also to supplies against foreign exchange cannot be treated in par with clearances permitted by the department for sale to DTA. It was found that sale in DTA against foreign exchange would be covered under para. 9.10(b) and would count against Net Foreign Exchange Target required under the policy - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 616 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Benefit of N/N. 214/86 and N/N. 208/83 - denial on the ground that the procedure required to avail the benefit of notification not followed - Whether the CESTAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of N/N. 208/83 and/or 214/86 as the case may be and the duty as confirmed is payable though the documentary evidence to prove the eligibility of exemption are available with the department? - Held that: - the assessee failed to establish that the procedure required to be followed for availing the benefit of notifications was actually followed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - rejected goods - Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - similar issue decided in the appellant own case M/s. Tirupati Structurals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ghaziabad [2015 (4) TMI 1032 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that goods returned by the appellant are not waste and scrap/ash and they are rejected goods and credit remains allowed - appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Demand of interest - credit reversed by the appellant - The appellants have argued that in terms of Section 11B clause 11 (ce) of the explanation, the appellants are required to pay interest only from the date of the order of JS (RA) and not from the date when they had taken the credit - Held that: - Section 11AB (1) of the Act mandates to pay interest in addition to the duty erro0neously refunded from the date of sanction of such erroneous refund till the date of payment of such duty. The unambiguous wordings of the aforementioned Section 11AB (1) leave no scope for interpretation - interest upheld - appeal dismissed.

  CENVAT credit - credit availed as per SION norms in respect of export made - Held that: - The Cenvat Credit Rules permits availment of credit only in specific circumstances. It is not open to the appellant to take credit on estimated basis. Moreover, in the instant case, there is no basis for the appellant to avail the Cenvat Credit. The appellant had sought to take credit solely on the ground that the final goods manufactured out of the same were exported - The exporter cannot, on his own devise a new method to avail credit which not prescribed under the law - appeal dismissed.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - fake invoices - issuance of invoices without issue of goods - issuance of second SCN by invoking extended period of limitation - Held that: - in this case, investigation was conducted at the end of M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. and it was alleged that M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. were indulged in manipulating their accounts. On the basis of that investigation, a SCN was issued to the appellant for imposition of penalty on the basis of allegations made against M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. In the circumstances, subsequent SCN cannot be issued to the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation to deny the cenvat credit - similar issue decided in the case of NATIONAL STEELS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI [2005 (10) TMI 194 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 612 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - sub Rule (3A) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - validity of SCN - Held that: - had appellant availed Cenvat credit attributable to both excisable goods as well as exempted goods then the question of examination for invocation of Sub-rule 2, 3 & 3A of said Rule 6 could have arisen. Since the appellant had availed such Cenvat credit which was attributable to excisable goods, the situation is covered by the Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of the CCR, 2004 - SCN's not valid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 611 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - input services - denial on account of nexus - Held that: - the CENVAT credit with respect to freight outwards of ₹ 32,482/- have been remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, CENVAT credit relating to canteen services, labour charges on civil work, telecommunication services are confirmed as not contested. So far the other services are concerned, all have been allowed - appeal is allowed and is remanded only with respect to freight outwards.

  Penalty - Held that: - the issue is wholly of interpretation in nature and that there is no suppression of any facts from the Revenue as all the transactions are properly recorded in the books of accounts ordinarily maintained in the course of business. Accordingly, the penalty retained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.

  Interest - Held that: - So far as interest is concerned, on amount of CENVAT credit on inputs services reversed, appellant is directed to pay the same in accordance with the law.

  Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 610 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Unjust enrichment - Refund claim of excess duty paid - rejection on the ground that the appellant has not opted for provisional assessment during the impugned period - Whether the appellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment or not? - Held that: - Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to show that the buying unit has taken cenvat credit of excess duty paid by the appellant. The allegation of the Revenue is only based on presumptions and assumptions which is not sustainable in law - benefit of doubt goes in favor of the appellant as per the undertaking filed by buying unit - the appellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment and is entitled to refund claim in question.

  Whether the appellant was required to opt for provisional assessment or not? - Held that: - the appellant has approached for a permission for provisional assessment under Rule 7 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for the financial year 2005-06, the said request was rejected. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has not applied for provisional assessment.

  The appellant is entitled for refund claim - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 609 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Demand of interest - penalty - credit reversed without utilising the same - Held that: - in a situation where credit is reversed prior to utilisation thereof interest cannot be demanded - the assessee has not utilised the said credit, the demand of interest on the credit reversed before utilising the same is set aside.

  Penalty - Held that: - It is not understood as how an error can occur where credit is taken without any documents. This can only happen when there is an intention to evade duty and default revenue. The ingredients necessary for imposing penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules and Section 11AC of the Act are clearly available - penalty upheld.

  Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 608 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Jurisdiction - CENVAT credit - input - sulphur powder received on payment of duty - Held that: - It is not open to the revenue officers having jurisdiction over the purchaser to question the assessment made by the officers having jurisdiction over the suppliers - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 607 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  MODVAT/CENVAT credit - furnace oil - Revenue sought to deny the credit essentially on the ground that the said goods were not brought in the factory of the appellant but were sent to the premises of the adjacent unit where boiler and furnace was installed - Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules 1944 - Held that: - Its apparent from this Rule 57B(1) of Central Excise Rules 1944 that credit of inputs used for generation of steam would be allowed provided the steam manufactured is used within the factory of production - it is apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals) recognised that the credit is admissible provided specified procedure are followed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 606 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - ingots purchased from a dealer - duty paying documents - Held that: - In the ordinary course of circumstances, where a proper invoice is produced and proof of payment along with gate register and Form 4 is presented the receipt of the goods is not challenged by the revenue - In the instant case, The appellant have not produced any document whatsoever like gate register, LR, Transport document or any other regarding in terms of Rule 9(5) to establish that the goods were indeed receipt in the factory and used in the manufacture of finished goods. In such circumstances, revenue has every right to question the actual receipt of goods and in terms of Rule 9(5) of CCR, the burden of proof regarding admissibility lies on the manufacturer - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 605 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  

  CENVAT credit - pipes, tubes and items falling under Chapter-85 - capital goods - Held that: - the Cenvat credit on pipes, tubes and items falling under Chapter-85 which are admissible within the definition of capital goods and therefore show cause notice does not sustain in respect of them.

  The demand of Cenvat credit beyond the period of one year without invoking extended period in the SCN - Held that: - as extended period not invoked, demand not sustainable.

  Penalty - Held that: - there are no allegations for any malafiedy on the part of appellant. Therefore, penalty also set aside.

  We allow this appeal in respect of demand except for ₹ 68,459/- - decided partly in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 604 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - loss of finished goods and semi-finished goods destroyed by fire - Held that: - Following the principles of law in the case of Union of India Vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. [2009 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it can be concluded that the provision which imposes a burden is always considered declaratory and cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the provision introduced in 2007 requiring reversal of CENVAT Credit at the time of granting of remission of duty being obligatory in nature, will apply prospectively.

  Appellant's prayer on levy of interest calls for remand for re-adjudication as the appellant says that they are not liable to the same on liability relating to the raw materials destroyed in flood - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant, part matter on remand.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Refund claim - Whether the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in allowing the CENVAT credit of the services used at unregistered premises and refund thereof? - Held that: - the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2017 (9) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - GTA service for outward transportation service - Held that: - the goods in question cleared from the factory of the appellants to their packing plant, the appellant remained the owner of the said goods. And it is a fact that the cost of goods transportation agent services has been included in the assessable value of the goods, therefore, in the light of CBEC Circular No.97/8/07 dated 23.8.07, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS Versus PARTH POLY WOOVEN PVT. LTD. [2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that outward transportation service would not be a service used by the manufacturer for clearance of final products from the place of removal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

1 ....101112131415161718........ 21