Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2008 2008 2008 (7) Central Excise - 2008 (7) 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 241 to 260 of 326 Records

• 2008 (7) TMI 274 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Differential duty demand on transaction between two units of same person - assessee-unit not earned any profit in material period - profit of 8% with reference to the transactions of all the four units belonging to the assessee-company, is not relevant for determining the assessable value of excisable goods cleared by the assessee to its sister concern - manufacturer unit as well as buyer unit belong to the same company, therefore, a revenue neutral situation exists – assessee’s appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 272 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Contentions raised by the petitioner that the demand raised was illegal as no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - There was no specific demand sought to be raised in letter issued by the Assistant Collector, as is the requirement under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 – held that provisions of Rule 10 are mandatory and unless and until they are complied with, no amount can be recovered from the petitioner

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 270 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Valuation - “related” buyer – buyer being a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the assessee - question is whether this “relationship” influenced the price of the goods sold to buyer, should be addressed with reference to the price actually charged for comparable quantities of goods sold to independent buyers - this exercise was not even attempted by the learned Commissioner while directing valuation of goods - Case is remanded to Commissioner for de novo adjudication

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 269 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Allegation of suppression of the duty payable goods - Department detected the case on 25-10-1996 and issued the SCN on 26-6-2000 - Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding of fact stating that show-cause notice issued on 26-6-2000 is barred by limitation - finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order is based on undisputed facts. Therefore, the substantial questions of law framed in this Appeal do not arise for our consideration – appeal of revenue dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 267 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Inputs procured from 100% EOU, prepared the invoices indicating 16% rate of duty which are applicable to any DTA unit – recipient-assessee of the inputs was not eligible for entire 19.6% credit - tribunal set aside penalty holding that recipient-assessee was genuinely under the impression that they were getting goods from a DTA unit and are eligible for full credit - error having been committed by the supplier - Tribunal findings based on the facts available on record, require no interference

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 261 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Lifts – whether classifiable as complete lifts or parts of lifts – in Excise law goods have to be assessed in form in which they are presented for clearance & cannot be clubbed as a single consignment for the purpose of R. 2 (a) of General Interpretative Rules – in the present case, since parts were cleared as individual parts, the same are classifiable u/h 84.31 and not as ‘lifts’ u/h 84.28 - As regards penalty, since this was a matter of interpretation of classification, penalty is set aside

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 258 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Constitutional validity of Rule 12CC of CER and the Notification No. 32/2006-C.E. - Summary scheme provided under notification no. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T.) in relation to tax evaders - impugned scheme is to act as a deterrent against tax evaders by withdrawal of facilities from such persons such as withdrawal of payment of duty by utilization of credit – held that validity of impugned notification farmed for a specific class of persons can not be challenged – Excise Rule 12CC is also valid

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 257 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Document for availing credit – Notification No. 23/95-C.E. - invoices were not pre-printed but were hand written - particulars required to be pre-printed in terms of notification in question- Whether the Tribunal (CEGAT) was right in allowing Modvat Credit on the strength of invoices which did not satisfy the provisions/criteria laid down under Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Notification No. 23-95-C.E. (N.T.) dated 10-5-1995 – Held, no

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 255 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Appellants cannot be considered to have got over the bar of unjust enrichment on the strength of the credit notes issued by them to their buyers after clearance of the goods - refund application originally filed on 29-11-2001, was withdrawn subsequently on 27-2-2002 - a fresh claim was filed only on 7-3-2002 and this was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B - this claim cannot be treated as continuation of the original claim inasmuch as the latter was withdrawn

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 253 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Appellants supplied pipes & tubes for a drinking water project on behalf of TISCO - necessary certificate is in name of TISCO – exemption notification 6/02-C.E. neither makes any stipulation that the impugned certificates should be in existence prior to clearance of the goods nor stipulate that it should be in the name of the supplier – exemption not deniable - supply was made on payment of duty and there is no allegation of unjust enrichment therefore, refund is allowed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Delayed refund – Interest – appellant is entitled to interest starting from expiry of three months period from date of passing of order by Tribunal till date of actual refund - As regards the interest on the penalty amount, deposited by the appellant by way of adjustment against rebate claims, we hold that no differentiation can be made in duty and penalty for the purpose of interest

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 247 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Claim for cash refund of PLA balance under the head AED (T&TA) & in CENVAT account- refund is authorized in respect of credit relating to the inputs used in the final products which are cleared for export under bond & the CENVAT credit in respect of the inputs so used cannot be utilized by the manufacturer for clearing the final products in DTA - held that except in the case of export of goods, in no other case refund of credit is permissible under the rules in cash/cheque – appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 244 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Department is challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that Education Cess can be paid by utilizing the Cenvat credit of BED – contention of the department is that Education Cess is not excise duty and therefore, the BED cannot be used for payment of Education Cess - Held that the credit of Basic Excise duty can be utilized for payment of any duty of excise - appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 243 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Shifting of factory – revenue denied credit on ground that invoices have not been endorsed in the name of new unit - Merely because the D3 intimation was not filed, revenue is not justified in drawing presumption that the goods were not in the original packed condition - once there is no allegation that the inputs have not been received and used in the manufacture, the credit cannot be denied - Endorsement is only a formality which has to be undertaken by them only & not by a third agency

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 242 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  “Pushpadi tail” - Revenue claim classification under sub-heading No. 3304.00 - main contention of the Revenue that “Lal tail” is a massage oil, “Pushpadi tail” which is main ingredient of “Lal tail” has to be massage oil only and not ayurvedic medicine – in view of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in respondent’s own case, held that “Lal tail” is medicament - grounds taken by the Revenue in their appeal are not sustainable - held that ‘Lal tail’ is medicament and is classifiable u/sh 3003.39

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 231 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  On the basis of discrepancies found in 4 copies of the invoices, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant alleging that they have cleared the goods twice under the cover of the same invoices - discrepancies stands duly explained by the assessee - fact of such discrepancies, cannot lead ipso facto to the conclusion that all other invoices were also used as a means of double transportation - in absence of affirmative evidence to show clandestine removal, the charges cannot be upheld

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 230 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Reduction of the price of the inputs with consequential reduction of assessable value at the end of the input-supplier – SCN issued to the appellants (manufacturer of final products) alleging that they were entitled to avail input-duty credit only to the extent of the duty ‘leviable’ on the inputs – held that revenue’s proposal for recovery of the excess credit, is not justified – since duty had already been paid by appellant, excess credit cannot be recovered by revenue – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT
  

  Rebate claims rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation u/s 11B - delay on part of the Customs Department in providing export promotion copy of shipping bill - if the Customs Authorities delay parting with a copy of shipping bill bearing necessary endorsement, an assessee cannot be put to disadvantage on the ground of limitation - petitioner was not at fault in making the claim belatedly – claim not deniable – petition allowed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 224 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Classification - Products are mixtures of spices along with other ingredients such as ‘asafoedita’, ‘rock salt’, ‘dry mango’ etc. – revenue contend that by addition of these ingredients the essential character of the spices is not retained so they are classifiable under Ch. S.H. 21.03 not under Ch.0903.10 – since 96% of the ingredients of the products in question are spices, contention of revenue cannot be accepted – assessee is justified in classifying the product u/ch 09.03

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 223 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Unjust enrichment - Excess payment of duty - refund claims rejected on ground that appellant had issued credit note for the differential value of the spares & insulation – it is clear that there was a clerical error while preparing invoice and making payment of duty to dept. - invoiced amount in excess was never received by the appellant and accordingly the duty amount claimed as refund had also not been passed on to the buyer at any stage of transaction – refund not deniable

  ---

1 ....91011121314151617