Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 68513 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1389 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    CENVAT credit - capital goods - MS Plates etc. - Held that - MS Plate were used for fabrication in tanks - In absence of any allegation in the SCN or another expert s opinion, Chartered Engineer Certificate produced by the appellant needs to be accepted - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1388 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Restoration of appeal - Mandatory deposit under 35F of Central Excise, 1944 - Held that - no pre-deposit has been made by the appellants as required under section 35F of the Central Excise, 1944. When mandatory pre-deposit has not been made by the appellants, then appeals are not maintainable - applications for Restoration of Appeals are dismissed as not maintainable........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    CENVAT credit - capital goods - input services - area based exemption - Original Authority held that the appellant being the same Central Excise assessee under a single registration, cannot take credit on such capital goods and input services as they are not covered by Cenvat Credit Rules. - Held that - if the unit is one and the same as contended by the Revenue, the products which are otherwise eligible for exemption under the said notification ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1386 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    100 EOU - N/N. 23 of 2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - Revenue held a view that Zinc powder cleared to DTA is not similar to Zinc ingots exported by the appellant and accordingly, denied the exemption - Held that - Admittedly, Zinc is manufactured by the appellant and exported in the form of ingots. Some of the zinc is cleared to DTA in the form of powder - there is no reason to deny the exemption to the appellant as the products cleared for export to D....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1385 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Liability of duty - job-work - lunch carry bag under the brand name of Tupperware - Held that - since the duty liability is essentially on the manufacturer, i.e. job-worker in the present case, the duty liability will need to be recovered from them. The appellant cannot be held liable for payment of such duty for the period prior to such undertaking - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1384 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Valuation - product manufactured by the assessee-appellants which is neither used in the production nor manufacture of final product, but consumed for the purpose of erection of tower - applicability of Rule 11, residuary clause - Held that - The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCC Pole Factory Vs. CCE, 2003 (10) TMI 53 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , allowed the claim of the assessee-appellants where PCC Poles were used for transmission of the e....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1317 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Application for Settlement - Settlement Commission, while rejecting the application, by the impugned order, did not allow the application to be proceeded with, in terms of Section 32 F (1) of the Act, as the petitioner did not satisfy the condition in Clause (a) of Section 32 E (1) (a) - Held that - the petitioner stated that, there was no processing of dyeing blended yarn in the last year, so, they did not file 173 B during that period, and in f....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1316 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Interpretation of statute - suo moto re-credit - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Hon ble Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in allowing the Appeal of the Respondent and in interpreting provision of Sec. 11 B of Central Excise Act 1944, by allowing to the Respondent to avail suomotu recredit of cenvat, by acknowledging it as only adjustment of books of entry? - Held that - this was not the case of the a....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1315 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Whether the penalty under Rule 15(2) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which is mandatory in nature can be waived by the CESTAT? - Held that - the Tribunal noted that there were different views of the High Court on the issue of taxability itself - The judgement of the Tribunal seems to be suggesting that the issue itself was not free from doubt. In any case, there is no establishment of allegations o....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1314 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Time limitation - CENVAT credit - construction services - suppression or mis-statement with a malafide intention on the part of the assessee - Held that - Revenue is not disputing the fact of reflection of the credit in the ER-1 returns filed by the assessee. Admittedly, when the returns are reflecting the credit, this leads to inevitable fact that the credit stands reflected in the Cenvat credit account i.e. RG-23A Part II also. - The ld. AR fai....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1313 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    CENVAT credit - final products cleared for home consumption as well as for export without payment of duty - denial on the ground they had availed Cenvat credit on the capital goods which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods during the said period - Held that - it is fact on record that the appellant had also cleared the goods on payment of duty under N/N. 29/2004-CE with effect from 18.06.2005. Hence, there is no fault in th....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1312 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    CENVAT credit - by-product - inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and exempted goods - non-maintenance of separate records - case od appellant is that by-products which emerge during the course of manufacture of finished goods cannot be subjected to Rule 6(3) of CCR 2004 - Held that - As far as applicability of Rule 6(3) to the by-product, the issue is covered by the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sterling Gelat....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1311 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    Clandestine removal - finished goods - entire case of the Revenue is on the findings of the lower authorities that two duplicating note books were found which contained information regarding clandestine removal of the goods - Held that - the two purchasers at the end of the statements itself have stated that they have not received any goods without duty paid documents from the appellant. It seems that the First Appellate Authority has not conside....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1310 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    Clandestine removal - demand based upon the two chit books recovered during the visit of the officers to main appellant s factory premises - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority has totally misconstrued the provisions of the law and the law as settled by the various decisions of the Tribunal as to confirmation of the demands on clandestine removal. It is now settled law, clandestine removal is a very serious allegation and needs to be corrobora....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1309 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Consulting Engineer Service - reverse charge mechanism - non-payment of service tax for the period May 2008 to February 2009 - Held that - The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd. 2011 (9) TMI 114 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that issue of SCN when entire amount along with interest stands paid is incorrect and bad in law - penalty set aside. - CENVAT credit -....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1308 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Refund claim - duty paid on raw materials sent to job workers - time limitation - section 11B of the CEA 1944 - Held that - The claim filed beyond the period of limitation cannot be overcome by making a refund claim appear to be an application for restoration of CENVAT credit - The credit having been reversed and the appellant having issued sales invoice retrospectively, amending their accounts so as to include the excise duty in the sales invoic....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1307 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    Transferring of entire CENVAT credit- closure of one unit - penalty u/r 15(1) of the CCR 2004 - denial of credit and imposition of penalty on the ground that they had taken the said credit without permission of the Central Excise officer in terms of Rule 10 of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that - rule 10 has been examined by the Tribunal in the case of Hewlett Packard 2006 (11) TMI 76 - CESTAT,BANGALORE , wherein it has been clearly held that no....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1306 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Demand of differential duty - penalty u/s 11AC - Cement - N/N. 4/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 (as amended) - denial on the ground that clearances are to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation and other construction builders is not covered under the said Notification and since their RSP is printed, which is not required to be printed, will fall under Clause 1C of the said Notification instead of Clause-1A - identical issue decided in the case of COM....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1305 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Valuation - furniture with Nilkamal brand name - principal job worker arrangement - Revenue held that the value of branded furniture by the appellant supplied to M/s.Nilkamal Ltd. should be in terms of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that - On careful perusal of the MOU, we note that same cannot be considered as arrangement for job work - The fact M/s. Nilkamal has sold the said furniture with much higher price and hence R....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1304 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - usage of brand name of client in the manufacture of plastic containers - N/N. 8/03 CE - Held that - Admitted fact is that brand name is for such packing material only. - It is clear that bar of use of brand name will not apply in case the packing material which bear the brand name of another person who uses the said packing material either himself or by on behalf of himself - In the present case, bran....... + More


3........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version