Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (10) Central Excise - 2008 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 190 of 190 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 63
Tribunal held the assessee entitled to remission of excise duty - Tribunal had independently recorded its satisfaction about the loss/destruction having been sustained by the assessee under the circumstances as covered by Rule 21 – merely because the Tribunal also relied upon the accounting policy of assessee, would not in any manner vitiate the finding of Tribunal. The finding remains the findings of fact - Expression ‘natural causes’ & ‘unavoidable accident’ should be given liberal meaning
-
2008 (10) TMI 60
Whether theft or dacoity would be unavoidable accident within the meaning of Rule 49 of CER so as to merit remission of excise duty on the goods so lost - Theft/dacoity are not a natural cause – therefore, held that ‘theft’ or ‘dacoity’ cannot be called unavoidable accident within the meaning of the Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the goods lost in theft or dacoity would not be eligible for remission
-
2008 (10) TMI 57
Whether, a manufacturer of final product, who procured inputs and availed MODVAT credit thereon, was entitled to remove the inputs as such, without reversal of the credit or payment of equivalent amount of duty, to a 100% EOU under CT-3 certificate in terms of Notification No. 1/95 – Held, no – because CT-3 certificate is valid only for procurement of goods manufactured by supplying units – held that inputs can only be cleared either on payment of duty or exported under bond
-
2008 (10) TMI 55
Clandestine removal by adopting the modus operandi like issuance of invoices of lesser quantity and removal of scrap without payment of duty by not issuing any Central Excise document - it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to file an application to adduce additional evidence before the tribunal, which was not done by appellant – tribunal was justified in rejecting affidavit filed by appellant, and confirming the order of lower authority on basis of statement of factory manager
-
2008 (10) TMI 54
Credit taken and utilized correctly when final product was dutiable – whether credit is required to be reversed when the said final product subsequently becomes exempt – whether such credit can be recovered by revenue - hold that when the input-credit legally taken and utilised on the dutiable final products, need not be reversed on the final product becoming exempt subsequently unless specific provision exist therefor
-
2008 (10) TMI 53
Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that “Connector fitted with wire” is classifiable under SH 8544.00 of the First Schedule to Tariff – held that connectors fitted with wire still remain as connectors and it cannot be equated with wire or cable – order of tribunal is not justified – classification should be determined on basis of terms of heading - Commissioner (Appeals) rightly classified the connectors with wire under Heading No. 8536.90 – revenue’s appeal rejected
-
2008 (10) TMI 51
Interpretation of the expression “as such” appearing in Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR – removal of capital goods for repair – held that expression “as such” doesn’t have any connection with capital goods being new, unused or used - expression “as such” should be understood without any alteration - held that even used capital goods were covered by expression “as such” occurring in Rules 3(4)(c) and 4(5)(a) – therefore, reversal of credit is required when capital goods are removed, whether used or not
-
2008 (10) TMI 50
Whether goods obtained in the process of dismantling of a ship such as angles, plates, rounds and heavy steel pipes etc. would constitute “manufacture” - In such cases of technical nature, particularly when ship breaking involves expertise, the Adjudicating Authority was required examine in detail the process by which the breaking of the ship takes place - matters are being remitted so that Adjudicating Authority
-
2008 (10) TMI 7
Whether cutting and slitting of steel sheets of polyester films used for lamination purposes amounts to manufacture – exigibility - Circular no. 584/21/2001 dated 7-9-01 took the view that the processes in question amounts to manufacture – but subsequent Circular no. 811/8/2005 dated 2-3-05 withdraws the earlier Circular dated7-9-01 – hence there is no merit in contention of revenue that process amounts to manufacture – Board’s circular is binding on revenue – revenue’s appeal dismissed
-
2008 (10) TMI 5
Board Circular not to prevail over Supreme Court Order - It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law - a revenue authority is eligible to challenge the validity of a circular. Para 9 of Dhiren Chemical case was being misunderstood.
....
|
|