Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2007 2007 (9) 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

Case Laws

Showing 481 to 500 of 658 Records

• 2007 (9) TMI 182
  

  Duty demanded from assessee in respect of goods DM & DAS water cleared to EOU – Procedural lapse of EOU for not applying for procurement of goods duty free is condonable – Revenue neutral – Demand set aside – Credit available on furnace oil used in steam generation supplied to EOU.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 181
  

  Import of Music systems under Special import license declaring them as C.D. player – Impugned item cost more than US $ 500 so they can only be imported under a valid specific license – Unauthorized import – Confiscation fine & penalty sustainable for mis-declaration – Appeal allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 180
  

  Discount given to distributor is deductible for purpose of payment of duty as distributor are not commission agents – Above discount was duly declared in price list & cost of moulds received from buyers included in A.V. by assessee so demand on account of suppression is dismissed

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 179
  

  PVC corrugated & plain sheets – Impugned goods are only used for installation of various environmental projects such as Methane Recovery Anaerobic Digester System – Classifiable U/H 8419 as Pollution Control Equipment not U/H 39.20 – Assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 178
  

  Once it is held that no duty is payable on goods the question of payment of duty collected in excess does not arise – Duty demand not sustainable u/s 11D – Once it is not denied that inputs were received & used in final product, credit can’t be denied for procedural lapse of non maintaining proper accounts

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 177
  

  As appellants are having both invoices issued by dealer & issued by manufacturer, credit can not be denied on ground that Name of appellant was cutoff from the manufacturer invoice – But no evidence produced to show that goods were used in repair of machinery by job worker so credit is deniable

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 176
  

  Recovery of erroneous refund – Appellant job worker while supplying the physician samples paid duty & he not only collected job charges but also duty amounts – Unjust enrichment applicable – Recovery of refund is allowed but it is necessary that SCN must have been issued by authorities for recovery

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 175
  

  Shortage detected on 40th consignment – Weight of earlier consignments has already been verified & were found in order – Shortage of 40th consignment can’t be applied to all the 40 consignment – Duty demand only on 40th consignment is reduced to Rs. 9825 & penalty reduced to Rs. 5,000.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 174
  
  Issues:
  1. Appeal against Order-in-Original CEX No. 15/2004 for non-payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme.
  2. Tribunal's remand and subsequent dropping of proceedings against the respondents.
  3. Interpretation of tribunal decisions Mega Alloys Ltd., Nalanda Electro Steel (P) Ltd., and J.M.G. Steel Pvt. Ltd.
  4. Commissioner's reliance on tribunal decisions and non-consideration of written submissions.
  5. Benefit under proviso to Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original CEX No. 15/2004 due to non-payment of duty under the compounded levy scheme by the respondents. The Tribunal remanded the matter, leading to the dropping of proceedings against the respondents by the Adjudicating Authority.
  
  2. The Tribunal's remand was based on the non-consideration of written submissions by the party. The Commissioner passed the impugned order dropping the proceedings against the respondents, citing decisions like Mega Alloys Ltd., Nalanda Electro Steel (P) Ltd., and J.M.G. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Revenue contested the dropping of proceedings.
  
  3. The Commissioner's decision was challenged by Revenue, arguing that the Commissioner should follow the Supreme Court's decisions rather than tribunal interpretations. The issue revolved around the applicability of Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 within the same financial year.
  
  4. The main contention was whether the respondents could avail the benefit under the proviso to Section 3A(2) despite opting for the compounded levy scheme under Rule 96ZP(3). The Tribunal considered the benefit of abatement from duty during the factory's closure, following decisions like Malviya Steel Ltd., Sanjay Alloys Pvt. Ltd., and Digamber Foundvy.
  
  5. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue's appeal, holding that the appellant was not liable to pay duty during the factory's closure period. The decision was based on established case laws and the benefit under the proviso to Section 3A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner's order was upheld due to the lack of proper reasons provided by Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 173
  

  Stay of operation of Comm.(A) order – It is well settled that First Appellate Order shall not be liable to intervened unless it is passed without evidence or perverse – In absence of any evidence, this forum reject stay petition/application filed by Revenue.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 172
  

  Credit availed on basis of supplementary invoices issued by supplier against the additional duty paid on ground of upward revision of price of goods – If no case of misdeclaration etc. has been made on supplier, then same cannot be made on receiver’s end – Credit not deniable u/r 7(1)(b)

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 171
  

  Once the goods are destroyed and remission has been granted, the credit availed should be reversed – Instant case is covered by the clarification given by the circular 80/04 CX – Demand of duty and levy of interest are justified – Assessee’s appeal rejected.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 170
  

  No evidence to prove the Nepalese currencies seized was out of some sale of gold – Comm.(A) brought the appellant to charges without cogent evidence to prove smuggling – Statement recorded under custom law can be believed with evidence only – Impugned order set aside

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 169
  

  SSI unit mfg. both own brand goods and branded goods of another – Separate accounts maintained – No evidence to prove that assessee availed input credit in respect of input used for SSI exempted goods – No justification to deny credit – Revenue’s appeal fails.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 168
  
  Issues:
  Penalties imposed under Rule 25 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act on 100% EOU for clearance of goods to another 100% EOU without payment of duty.
  
  Analysis:
  
  1. The appellants, a 100% EOU, filed appeals against penalties imposed for clearing goods to another 100% EOU without duty payment on production of necessary CT certificates. The revenue requested re-warehousing of certificates for the cleared consignments. The appellants failed to produce necessary certificates initially but later paid the duty with interest for the consignment in question.
  
  2. Show cause notices were issued, demand and penalties were confirmed, and amounts deposited by the appellants were appropriated. The adjudicating authority found no willful intention to evade duty as goods were cleared against valid CT-3 certificates in the presence of excise officers. The authority dropped penalty proceedings considering the duty payment before the notice. However, penalties were imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
  
  3. The appellant contended that goods were cleared against valid CT certificates in the presence of excise officers, with no evidence of diversion to DTA. The jurisdictional officer confirmed non-receipt of goods against the CT certification in question. The appellant argued that since goods were cleared with valid CT certificates, there was no diversion.
  
  4. The revenue argued that as goods were cleared without duty payment as per procedure, the appellants should prove intended use. Since they failed to do so, penalties were justified. The revenue relied on the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that goods were diverted to the open market.
  
  5. The judgment noted that duty was paid with interest before the show cause notice. It was observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) held the appellants diverted goods to the open market without any evidence or affidavit from the appellants to counter this claim.
  
  6. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence showing diversion to the open market. Goods were cleared with valid CT-3 certificates, and the revenue did not dispute their validity. Citing a previous case, it was concluded that if duty is paid before the show cause notice, penalty imposition is not sustainable.
  
  7. Considering the above discussion, the judgment found merit in the appellant's contention. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 167
  

  Comm.(A) is not vested with the power to remand back cases consequent to the specific amendment in this regard carried by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.01 – Hence revenue appeal is allowed question remand back by Comm.(A) u/s 35A(3) of C.E. Act.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 166
  

  Even if other notice have not sought settlement, though settlement application of co-noticee can’t be rejected – Applicant even if not the real importer but has admitted the entire amount demanded of him in SCN – Hence right of applicant to approach the commission can’t be taken away.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 165
  

  Bonafide belief of assessee is that use of word ‘In technical collaboration…’ does not mean use of brand name of others – SSI unit – Discontinuance of use of above inscription not disputed – Held that demand within time limit is upheld but demand for extended period of limitation is set aside.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 164
  
  Issues:
  Value enhancement based on different goods description in bills of entry.
  
  Analysis:
  The appellant filed an appeal against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of Self Adhesive Plastic Sheeting with paper lining in rolls. The revenue enhanced the value based on imports by other importers, leading to an assessment at a higher rate. The appellant contended that the bills of entry relied upon by the adjudicating authority were not for the same or similar goods. They argued that the description and country of origin in the bills of entry differed from their imports. The revenue asserted that self-adhesive tapes were imported in both cases and the value was enhanced correctly. However, the Tribunal found that the goods imported by the appellant were specifically declared as Self adhesive plastic sheeting with paper lining in rolls, while the bills of entry and invoices referred to by the revenue described plastic sheets of various sizes. As the imports relied upon by the revenue were not of the same or similar goods, the Tribunal concluded that the enhancement of rates based on those bills of entry was not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2007 (9) TMI 163
  

  MS Bars mfd. out of non-duty paid input ship breaking scrap – Duty sought to be levied on MS Bars – As dept. could not prove that ship breaking scrap is non-duty paid, duty can’t be levied on MS Bars so clearance of MS Bars without paying duty under Exem. Not. 208/83 can not be challenged by dept.

  ---

1 ....212223242526272829........ 33