Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2007 2007 2007 (6) Central Excise - 2007 (6) 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 201 to 219 of 219 Records

• 2007 (6) TMI 51 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Manufacture - Alleged that appellant were made willful suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty and accordingly demand were made along with penalty - Held that allegation was not correct and demand and penalty not sustained

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 50 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - In the year of receipt of capital goods the appellants had claimed depreciation in the ITR in respect of each of these capital goods excluding the cenvat credit availed in the corresponding assessment year - Held that appellant claimed is correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 49 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Appellant demand for refund claim on the ground that they made wrong reversal of cenvat credit - Held that appellant demand was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 47 - CESTAT,CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat/Modvat - Department contended that appellant liable to pay an amount equivalent to the capital goods credit on the ground that they removed the capital goods from their factory during alienation of property - Held that department contention is not valid and set aside

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 46 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
  

  Classification - Department contended that the appellant goods (Aluminium foil) is classifiable under SH 3920.38 and 3923.90 of CET and not under SH 7607.60ibid - Held that revenue contention was not correct and rejected

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 45 - CESTAT,CHENNAI
  

  Valuation (Central Excise) - Assessee claim for deduction towards interest on receivable from the sale price of the goods - Held that there is no evidence to support that such interest having been separately recovered by the assessee and accordingly non deduction allowed

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 36 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Dutiability - Revenue contended that the activity of process of lamination granules of LDPE on HDPE fabrics amount to manufacture and accordingly demand were made along with penalty - Matter remanded to original authority for re-determination

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 35 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenavt/Modvat- Department contended that appellant not liable for credit on the waste and scrape cleared by him after process and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty - Held that department contention was correct and allowed

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 24 - CESTAT,KOLKATA
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Appellant contended that service charges collected from customers who bring their own cylinders for cleaning and making them ready before filling with fresh oxygen and other gases are not includible in the assessable value – Held that appellant contention is correct

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 21 - CESTAT,KOLKATA
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Department declaring that the depot as a place of removal and hence the impugned goods are required to be assessed at a higher price at which they have sold from depot and accordingly demand was made – Held department contention is not correct

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 20 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Classification – Revenue contended that appellant manufactured Rainwear (apparel and clothing) is classified under Heading 40.15 but as per appellant it is fall under Heading 62.01 – Held that said article classified under 62.01

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 15 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Interest – Revenue contended that appellant liable to pay interest on the duty liability discharged by respondents prior to the issue of the SCN – Commissioner held that respondent not liable to pay interest

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 14 - CESTAT,MUMBAI
  

  Demand – Department contended that appellant liable to pay demand of duty even if the short-levy is on account of any prior approval, acceptance or assessment as per the retrospective amendment to section 11A of CEA,1944 – Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the demand

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 12 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD
  

  Confiscation and Penalty – Alleged that de-sealing of the stenter machine, on their own without intimation of the revenue and processing the goods by using the said stenter and not entering the same in the RG-1 register and penalty and redemption imposed on the partnership unit

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 11 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD
  

  Manufacture - Departmant contended that appellant activity i.e.received HOt Rolled Patta/Pattis from various parties; subjected them to cold rolling is covered under manufacture and demand were made alongwith penalty and interest - Held the contention correct

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 10 - CESTAT,KOLKATA
  

  Valuation(Central Excise) – Appellant contended that the additional charges claimed from the buyer is towards the D.G.S.&D. Inspection charge and the same was not form the part of the transaction value – Held that the contention of appellant is correct

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 8 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty- Revenue contended that respondent had facilitated evasion of duty by issuing the fake invoices in question – held that respondent is not anywhere concerned with the allegation,so penalty set aside

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
  

  SSI Exemption – Appellant company (LLFL) demanded for SSI Exemption by declaring that the other unit (BBPL) is its holding company – Department contended that it doesn’t claim at the time of SCN – Held that appellant not entitle for SSI Exemption

  ---

• 2007 (6) TMI 3 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand and penalty – Alleged that assessee had deliberately failed to include the value of item bush in the assessable value of pulsator in order to short pay duty and extended period invoked on assessee alongwith duty demand and penalty – Held that allegation is right and demand and penalty sustained

  ---

1 ....7891011