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 81 to 100 of 222 Records

• 2007 (10) TMI 410 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  remand order - not followed - which was patently in defiance of the Tribunal's remand order - while waiving pre-deposit of duty and penalty and staying recovery thereof pending the Appeal, we also direct copy of this order be forwarded to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for information and further action - Held that: - lower authority cannot go against the order of remand issued by the higher Appellate Authority - Judicial discipline requires that this system which has been followed in our judicial system must be maintained by all judicial and quasi judicial authorities - direction petition disposed of

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Business Auxiliary Services - Vehicle loans - Show cause notice - whether, the consideration received should be treated on value-cum-duty basis?

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 388 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Demand - Limitation - The only issue in this case is whether the appellant could have invoked the extended period of limitation as mentioned in the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?. Held that - assessee acted bonafide in making its clearance and claiming exemption even using other's brand name. extended period of limitation not invocable. Impugned Tribunal's order well reasoned. No substantial question of law arise, appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 369 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption-Circular No. 796/29/2004-CX, dated 4.9.2004- Notification dated 1.3.2002- This appeal is by the Revenue. The dispute is in regard to the excise duty payable by the respondent in respect of Naptha stored in the warehouse of Mangalore. Naptha to be supplied to M/s. Tanir Bavi Power Project was not liable to pay Central Excise Duty as the same was exempted under the said notification. Thereafter, under Circular No. 796/29/2004-CX., dated 4-9-2004 Government of India has withdrawn warehousing facilities w.e.f. 6-9-2004, revenue called upon the respondent to pay duty plus Education Cess by exercising powers under Section 11A and interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Held that- when there is an exemption for the use of such Naptha for such Power Project, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee relying upon Para 4 of the circular dated 4-9-2004. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 312 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
  

  Appeal by Department - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... passed the order in favour of the assessee by following the decision of the Supreme Court dated 3-9-2001 dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 6196 of 2001 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai against the order of the CEGAT No. 402 of 2001 dated 13-3-2001 and reported in 2001 (133) E.L.T. 124 (Tribunal - Chennai) in the case of Carborundum Universal Limited v. Commissioner. 7. With regard to the reasoning given by the Department, for condoning the delay, we are in complete agreement with the reason given by the Tribunal and the reason for belated filing is a bona fide cannot be accepted. Further, on merits also, as the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has been passed based on the decision of the Supreme Court as aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal, which are impugned in these appeals. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are also dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 311 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... hearing and disposing the appeal. If the Commissioner is of the opinion that the appeal is barred by limitation, an order can only be passed after giving opportunity to the petitioner. In the instant case, no such opportunity has been given nor an order passed in the appeal, except that, of present communication dated 29-8-2007. 4. Considering the above, the impugned communication dated 29-8-2007 is set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter to dispose of the appeal. All questions are left open including the question as to whether the appeal is barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner states that the address for the service of notice will be address given in the petition. The petitioner to appear before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 29-10-2007 at 11.00 a.m. and thereafter the Commissioner (Appeals) to give further directions for the date of hearing. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 309 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... and its constituents as set out in para 10 and thereafter proceeded to hold that it would fall under classification CTH 29.36. The contention of the petitioner is that the product which was the subject matter and which was before the Commissioner (Appeals) was the same product when the issue was before this Court and the issue had been answered in favour of the petitioner. 4. In our opinion, considering the earlier decision of this Court in respect of the very same product, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and not directed pre-deposit as ordered, unless the order of the A.O. clearly demonstrate that the product would not fall in the same classification as held by this Court. Prima facie that was not so. Consequently, the order dismissing appeal for failure to pre-deposit as also order of pre-deposit are set aside and the appeal restored to be heard on merits without pre-deposit. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 308 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
  

  Whether the Tribunal justified in law by expressing opinion that extended period of limitation as postulated u/s 11 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not attracted despite the factum there has been suppression of material fact arising out of the confessional statement made by the Chief Executive of the Assessee Company?

  Held that:- Regard being had to the obtaining factual matrix and the law governing the field and keeping in view the solitary bald statement of the officer of the assessee we are our considered opinion that this is not a fit case to issue a direction to the Tribunal to refer the question of law as mentioned in the petition. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 303 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the items can be considered as "consumable" on the facts of the case?

  Held that:- Dealing with a case under a Sales Tax statutes, i.e. Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, this Court held that the word "consumable" takes colour from and must be read in the light of the words that are its neighbours "raw material", "component part", sub-assembly part" and "intermediate part". So read, it is clear that the word "consumables" therein refers only to material which is utilized as an input in the manufacturing process but is not identifiable in the final product by reason of the fact that it has got consumed therein. It is for this reason, a departure was made from the concept that "consumable" fall within the broader scope of the words "raw materials". In the cases at hand "consumable" are treated differently from "raw materials". Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 280 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Clandestine removal - statutory records/other private records can be relied after giving opportunity of hearing to appellant – original authority plaing reliance on register which does not show the actual clearance but contained only the orders received - reliance placed on the chartered engineer’s certificate to estimate production capacity is not appropriate - charge of unaccounted production and clandestine removal is upheld - matter remanded to re-determine duty, penalty and interest

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 272 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Grinding and mixing Guar Dal for obtaining Guar gum – held that impugned process amounts to manufacture - held that the Guar Gum would be properly classifiable under Chapter 11.01, as a product of milling industry which attract ‘nil’ rate of duty – impugned order confirming demand and imposing penalties are set aside

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 268 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Goods destroyed in fire – since there is no dispute about destruction of final product and input and capital goods in fire, remission of duty in respect of finished product cannot be denied - consequently demand on the final product is not to be upheld - As regards Modvat credit involved in various inputs or interim product, we find that the issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries – held that demand is not sustainable

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 258 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Credit in respect of “electrical spares for roll grinding machine” and “drill machine” - electrical spare for roll grinding machine which is used to get correct surface finish on aluminum sheets are accepted as “spare” so they are covered by the definition of capital goods u/r 57Q - hence credit on the same cannot be denied - drilling machines used for the purpose of maintenance in the workshop, are also eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 244 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Includibility of advertisement and publicity charges (incurred by the dealers) in the assessable value of vehicles (manufactured and sold to the dealers by the appellants) - held that advertisement cost sharable between the manufacturers and the dealers can not be included in the assessable value, as the advertisement promoted the sale of the dealers also – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 243 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Respondents were getting the goods manufactured from their job workers and was availing Cenvat credit facility - though the respondents were not entitled to credit as they have not undertaken any manufacturing activity but the facts remains that they have paid duty on the final products in which the inputs was used and the quantum of duty paid on the final products is not less than the credit taken on the inputs – demand set aside on account of revenue neutrality

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 242 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable & exempted final products - appellant kept invoices relating to purchase of goods for the two streams but did not maintain separate accounts as required under erstwhile Rule 57AD of CER/Rule 6(3) of CCR - have to pay an amount equal to the 8% of the price of the exempted final products in terms of Rule 57AD (2)(b) and 57I of the C E R and, from 26.02.01 in terms of Rule 6(3)(b) of CCR – demand is sustained but penalty is reduced

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 240 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Interest on the delayed refund – refund claim filed earlier but settled after Tribunal’s order - application for refund should be made within one year from the date of payment of duty under protest - appeal of the appellant is allowed and it is directed that the appellants be given appropriate rate of interest, which was prevailing during the period, for the period beyond of three months from the date of filing of claim

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 239 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
  

  Appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed by commissioner (A) by opining that it was barred by time - provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 Act would apply to Section 35 of Central Excise Act by virtue of judgments of Supreme Court in several cases - Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to consider the case of the petitioners by taking into account the fact as to whether the petitioners were prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN
  

  Shortage of irregular and regular marble slabs – demand & penalty - shortage was admitted by the petitioner - petitioner failed to substantiate the facts and grounds, raised in the appeal that shortage is due to long storage of marble - substantial question of law framed in the reference petition does not arise – assessee’s petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (10) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund claim for unutilized credit of AED (T&TA) – no dispute to the substantial compliance of the Rule 5 of CCR – appellants declared that they have not filed any other claim for refund u/r 5 to which this claim relates – held that so long export of goods and proper taking of Cenvat credit are not in dispute, refund claim cannot be denied for procedural lapses – rejection of the refund claims for non-fulfillment of the proviso to Clause-2 of the Appendix to the said Not. 11/02 is unjustified

  ---

123456789........ 12