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 261 to 280 of 326 Records

• 2008 (7) TMI 220 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Clandestine removal – statements of partners admitting the fact, are supported by corroborative evidence which were recovered from the factory - traders have admitted that they have given only bills/invoices and bills/invoices of fictitious firms and have not supplied the goods – no explanation from appellant - denial of Cross-examination has not adversely affected the defence of appellant – no violation of natural justice – demand is sustainable – appeal of assessee is rejected

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 218 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Appellants are availing benefit of Notification No.39/01 which provides for refund of duty paid from PLA subject to conditions prescribed therein - appellant had availed credit on HSD oil which was not admissible - refund claim on the ground that they had made the payment of duty from PLA and consequently in terms of Notification No.39/01, they are eligible for the refund – since notification expressly not prohibiting any supplementary refund claim, refund is to be sanctioned

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 216 - CESTAT AHEMDABAD
  

  Clandestine removal of M.S. rectangular bars - stock taking was not done by department - evidence in the form of loose chits(containing details of sales and clearances of finished goods) found in the factory and a statement of the partner are not adequate as evidence - officers have failed to investigate the case properly and had failed to provide sufficient evidence even to conclude preponderance of probability in favour of the department – revenue’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 215 - 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. The main ground taken by 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 - therefore, appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 214 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Zinc concentrate cleared to own unit for captive consumption - zinc concentrate transferred to the appellant’s own unit - Whatever duty was being paid by the appellant was available as credit to them and nothing would go into the Revenue’s pocket. The entire excise is revenue neutral as neither the assessee stands to loose anything by paying higher duty nor the Revenue stands to gain anything by the appellant’s adoption of lower assessable value - demand is unwarranted and unsustainable

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 213 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of duty paid in cash - in terms of Not. No. 56/2002, assessee located in Jammu was required to pay duty by first exhausting their Modvat credit available and then through PLA - duty paid in cash through PLA was available as refund - duty was paid by cash, without first exhausting the credit - credit which was required to be utilized in the previous months was subsequently utilized by the assessee in the succeeding months, the entire situation is revenue neutral – refund cannot be denied

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 209 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT
  

  Appellant undoubtedly has not satisfied itself about the identity and address of the supplier either from its personal knowledge, or on the strength of the certificate issued to the supplier by the Superintendent of Central Excise - Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellants failed to take reasonable steps of Rule 7(2) when admittedly the Appellants received goods from principal supplier on job work basis - appeal of assessee is, accordingly, dismissed.

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT
  

  Deemed credit on export – refund - neither u/r 57F(13) of CER nor under Not. no. 29/96-C.E.(N.T.) has any Notification been published in the Official Gazette by the Central Govt. prescribing any safeguards, conditions or limitations - when there is no dispute to the fact that that assessee is seeking refund of unutilized deemed credit, provisions of Section 11B, which have been relied upon by the revenue, cannot be applied – revenue’s appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 205 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Cotton yarn manufactured is put on open cheese form at the intermediate stage before conversion into plain straight reel hanks - cotton yarn in plain straight reel hanks was exempt – whether duty is payable at the spindle stage or before conversion to hank yarn - in view of Circular No. 72/88-CX-6, demands is to be kept pending till a final decision is communicated in this matter – demand raised without taking notice of final communication (Circular No. 628 /19/2002), is not justified

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Demands - hydrogen trolleys and helium quads - department makes a submission that the cylinders were fitted in the premises of the appellant and hence the manufacture of hydrogen trolleys, helium quads by the appellant is proved – no evidence to dispute that impugned structures were mfd. by job-worker - Even otherwise mere fitting of cylinders in the slots meant for them and testing will not amount to manufacture - question of adding the value of cylinders to determine the value does not arise

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 199 - HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
  

  Non-use of imported materials (inputs) - availment of credit on the inputs which were not received and were not utilised in mfg. - contravening the provisions of Rules 57A(4) and 57G(3) of CER – intention to evade payment of duty - Balance sheet shows non-receipt of inputs - Tribunal has committed a grave error in accepting the supplementary balance sheet and in allowing the assessee’s appeal – Appeal of revenue is allowed by way of remand to tribunal

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 198 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Credit on inputs used in mfg. of PVC resin - BORAQUAT C508 & BIOCIDE H 300 used to eradicate growth of Algae and Fungi in PVC plant, is eligible for credit - HCL acid used in cooling tower to improve the PH of cooling water; to prevent the pilling and oxidation of cooling, water in the pipes, is eligible for credit - HYDRAZINE HYDRATE used to remove nascent Oxygen to prevent oxidation in the pipes carrying water to boiler, is also eligible for credit as input

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 197 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Revenue objects to the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment – downward revision of price retrospectively - appellants repaid the differential price along with differential duty to the buyers by issuing credit notes - revenue’s contention that once the goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty, refund of such duty cannot be claimed after issuing credit notes, is rejected - refund claim for the excess duty paid by them at the time of original clearance of the goods, is allowable

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 194 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Whether the respondents were entitled to SSI benefit under Notifications No. 9/98 and 9/99-C.E. in respect of their products cleared under the brand name which belonged to a foreign company - exclusive right to use the brand name in India was granted to the respondents by the brand name-owner qualified to be treated as ‘assignment” for purposes of SSI notifications – therefore, lower appellate authority was right in granting the benefit of the notifications to the respondents

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Commissioner allowed the claim for interest on refund because of delay from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the order of the Tribunal till the date of actual payment of refund – appellant states that the interest should be paid from the date of payment - held that interest has to be allowed as per statutory provisions only - interest on delayed refunds have to be considered us/ 11B & 11BB – Commissioner’s order upheld – assessee’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 179 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Respondent cleared physician samples which were not for sale, by arriving at the assessable value on cost construction basis - Revenue, proceeded against the Respondent in respect of the valuation of the physician samples cleared by them free of cost - decision of the Commissioner (A)’s that the valuation should be done u/r 11 Read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 which amounts to valuation on the basis of cost construction, is justified – revenue appeal rejected

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 176 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Unpacked tea brought from sister units u/r 173H for packing, on payment of duty - whether the impugned activities amount to manufacture - It is not the case of the appellant that packaged tea was a different excisable commodity after 1-3-1999 - It is a clear finding in the order of the appellate Commissioner that, from 1-3-1999, packaged tea was not a separate excisable commodity - This finding has not been challenged in the present appeal – hence revenue appeal is liable to be dismissed

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 175 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Whether “carpet matting” is classifiable under CH 570390.90 as claimed by the assessee or falls under 870899.00 as found by the Department - Though, in common parlance the impugned product may not be considered as carpets, in view of the wordings of the chapter the section notes, chapter notes and the explanatory notes extracted above we are of the considered opinion that the impugned goods is correctly classifiable under chapter heading 570390.90 as claimed by the assessee.

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 171 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Wrong computation of duty demand taking highest value prevailing at depot on day of removal from factory – duty paid by appellant more than actual liability as indicated from Annexures to SCN - allegation of collecting excess amount from the customers as duty is not proved. In this regard, the burden entirely lies on the Department which cannot be shifted to the Appellants – duty paid as per directions of filed officer so suppression not proved– demand not sustainable on merits & on limitation

  ---

• 2008 (7) TMI 170 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of rubberized textile fabrics which were being cleared by them without payment of duty by availing exemption u/not. 4/97-C.E. - In terms of the said Notifications, fabrics are allowed to be cleared without payment of duty if no credit u/r 57A has been availed – since assessee availed credit on inputs (furnace oil), exemption ibid cannot be allowed – since misdeclaration is proved, hence invocaton of longer period is justified

  ---

1 ....1011121314151617