Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (12) Central Excise - 2008 (12) 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 181 to 192 of 192 Records

• 2008 (12) TMI 112
  

  Classification - held that “Packing Front, Packing Rear and Balata Packing” are to be classified u/h 87.08 as “parts and accessories of the motor vehicles”, as claimed by assessee – held that “Balata Washer and Packing Ring”, are article of vulcanized rubber other than hard rubber, are to be classified under SH 4016.99 and not u/h 87.08 as “part of motor vehicle” – held that “Hand Brake Cover and Strap”, are articles of plastic so classifiable under SH 8302.00 as claimed by the department

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 111
  

  Respondent-manufacturer cleared the goods for export through merchant-manufacturers, against ARE-2 - proof of export was not produced within 6 months from date of clearance – neither respondent was a party to the fact of non-export by merchant-exporter not he acted in a mala fide manner to avail the benefit - there being no dispute about the genuineness of ARE 2, failure on the part of merchant-exporter would not invite any penal action against the respondent-manufacturer

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 110
  

  Credit on scrap obtained from breaking of imported as per Not. 177/86-C.E. – appellant by relying upon them Trade Notice No. 38/99 issued by CCE, Chandigarh submit that the scrap obtained by breaking of imported ships would not be covered by the restriction clause in the above Notification – revenue relying upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Sardar Steel Mills, has been rejected by Tribunal in case of Vidyaram Steel Re-Rolling Mills – benefit not deniable to appellant

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 71
  

  Area based exemption - doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - Not. No. 1/08 dated 18-1-08 denies the benefit of the Exemption Not. No. 50/2003 to the Petitioner-Unit in Himachal Pradesh as petitioner unit is engaged in packing only – held that amending notification is prospective and applicable to units engaged in peripheral activities coming into operation after issuance of such amending notification, and not affects the industrial units, like that of the petitioners, which was already in existence

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 66
  

  Appellant has offered three packs of ‘Shikakai’ soaps for the price of two packs – valuation – section 4A CEA - detachment of individual packs is easily possible without mutilating individual pack – valuation should be done according to MRP on individual pack not according to price mentioned on pack of three - held that appellant’s claim to discharge duty on three combined packs @ Rs. 24/- is not acceptable and held that appellant has to discharge duty @ Rs. 36/- for the pack of three soaps

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 55
  

  Appeal by department - Tribunal has power to consider as to whether the substantive requirement u/s 35B(2) has been met before filing an appeal under the said sub-section - since the Committee of the Commissioners has neither come to a finding that the impugned orders are not legal or proper nor given any reasons therefore, the authorizations issued by the Committee are not valid in eyes of law - appeals filed by dept. in pursuance of such authorizations are not maintainable, hence dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 53
  

  Recovery of sums due to Government - Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Whether realization of the duty under the Central Excise Act will have priority over the secured debts – held that secured debts have priority over the excise dues - there is no merit in the appeals by revenue

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 47
  

  Assessable value - Includibility of fright incurred for carrying the empty container back - invoice clearly shows the price at which the impugned goods are sold at the factory gate and the freight has been indicated separately - impugned goods namely, Butadiene is notified as explosive and hence, it goes in special tankers – held that return freight is not includible - Circular no. 643/34/2002-CX followed blindly by adjudicating commissioner, without applying mind, while confirming demand

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 46
  

  Whether 8% of the amount is required to be discharged, before removal of by products/subsidiary products when such products are exempted from whole of duty – held that in case of common inputs used in dutiable and exempted goods, liability to pay 8/10% not arise for waste - Larger Bench decision of the CESTAT Mumbai is beyond the scope of reference where decision of Tribunal in the case of Binani Zinc Limited was approved by the larger Bench – petition succeeds

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 45
  

  Applicability of the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of the Appellate or revisional jurisdiction - . The scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction must be first considered - doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application. Merely because there are two orders, one by the inferior authority and the other by a superior authority passed in an appeal or revision, it cannot be said that there is a merger of the two orders

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 29
  

  Duty payable on a product which is obtained by blending bio-diesel (methyl ester) and petro-diesel in the ratio of 60% & 40% – classification – held that the blend of pure bio-diesel and petrol-diesel in the ratio of 60% and 40% would fall under 38 24 9090 of CETA, 1985- process of blending would amount to manufacture under CEA, 1944 - above blend is fully exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 4/2006-Central Excise dated 1.3.2006, as amended by Not. 4/2007-Central Excise dated 1.3.07

  ---

• 2008 (12) TMI 5
  

  Whether the HC was entitled to condone the delay of 16 days in filing the Reference Application by the Commissioner u/s 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – revenue contended that u/s 35H, HC had inherent jurisdiction to condone the delay - Under Section 35H, on an application for reference, the High Court exercises its advisory jurisdiction in a case where it is of the opinion that the substantial question of law of public importance arises - matter referred to a larger Bench

  ---

1 ....678910