Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2009 2009 2009 (11) Central Excise - 2009 (11) 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 189 of 189 Records

• 2009 (11) TMI 73
  

  Failure in monthly payment of duty – Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 – forfeiture of payment of duty through cenvat credit – held that - we are of the view that if the appellant (commissioiner of central excise) has preferred to pass one consolidated order in respect of five show cause notices then the provisions of sub rule 3 A of Rule 8 of the rules are attracted which make it clear that two months period would run either from the date of order or from the date of payment. The amounts due having been paid just after 30 days and within two months for each respective instance, then the forfeiture of the facility to pay dues in monthly instalments would be for a period of two months from the date of passing of communication of the order. The order for each instance being a common order, the period of two months would in the facts and circumstances of this case necessarily run concurrently.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 69
  

  Refund – Unjust enrichment – captive consumption - refund amount was paid to the dealer-respondent - the appellant issued a show cause notice dated 8.6.2000(Annexure A.3) for recovery of the refund amount on the ground that captive consumption also amounted to undue enrichment and proceedings under Section 11-A of the Act were initiated. The aforesaid recovery proceedings eventually reached the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 15.7.2008 has rightly taken the view that once order dated 24.8.1998 has attained the finality and has not been set aside in appeal, the parallel proceedings under Section 11-A of the Act cannot again be initiated.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 68
  

  Duty paying document – Cenvat Credit - The Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the invoices on the basis of which cenvat credit has been claimed had mentioned vehicle numbers which were found to be fictitious. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the consignor M/s Northern Industrial Corporation who had issued invoices did not even produced any GR or lorry receipt in support of the claim of having dispatched the goods and it was found to be a common practice for the trucks to use the fake number plates. In respect of two invoices issued by M/s Northern Industrial Corporation to M/s Avtar Foundry and Workshop on their physical verification it was found that no goods have been received. It was taken to mean that M/s Northern Industrial Corporation indeed issued invoices without sending any goods. After recording the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal concluded that the cenvat credit has been rightly denied and equal amount of penalty on the appellant company under Section 11 AC of the Act was also upheld. – Held that - there are pure findings of fact and false claim of cenvat credit was made by the dealer appellant – order of tribunal upheld

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 66
  

  Cenvat credit – allegation of non receipt of inputs – reliance on octroi receipts – held that - no reliance could be placed on the octroi receipts which do not contain any iota of evidence that the material mentioned therein had been cleared/sold - It was further held that no enquiry was made by the Revenue from the Octroi Post Authorities as to how and on what basis octroi receipts were issued and, therefore, the charges against the dealer-assessee remained unsubstantiated – revenue appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 28
  

  Deemed Manufacture - Whether the activity of cutting specified varieties of cables received by the applicant into prescribed lengths, testing thereof and packaging amounts to manufacture in terms of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with note 6 of Section XVI of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – held that – no – the activity does not amount to be a manufacturing activity.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 12
  

  Cenvat Credit – Rule 9(2) – reversal of credit - whether a manufacturer who has obtained credit of the Central Value Added Tax paid by him in respect of the raw material and inputs lying in stock or in process or contained in the final product lying in stock is required to refund/repay the credit when the final product is exempted from excise – held that - Since the language of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Rules is identical to that of Rule 57H(5) of the Excise Rules, we feel that the interpretation given by the Apex Court has to apply in the present case also and, therefore, even though the final product may be exempt from payment of excise, the assessee cannot be asked to reverse the Modvat credit already taken by it – answered in favor of assessee

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 10
  

  Penalty – mandatory penalty - Whether interest and penalty is imposable even if C.E duty has been deposited by the assessee before Show Cause Notice in case where the said duties deposited not voluntarily but on detection by the department – held that - The question as to whether penalty should be imposed or not is a question of fact. Since this question has not been determined by the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Tribunal whose decisions are based only on the consideration that the excise duty was deposited prior to the issuance of the show cause notice, we set-aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal and remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision on the issue of penalty after determining the question whether the non-payment of duty in the present case was on account of fraud, collision or any willful mis-representation or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty as laid down under Section 11AC.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 5
  

  Scrabble – classification – games – toys – education toys – puzzles - held that – "Scrabble" is not a puzzle as in "Scrabble" there is no fixed outcome, there is no clue as in the case of a puzzle and there is an element of skill and chance. - "educational toys" remain even today tools of amusement - even a "Junior Scrabble" will not fall in the category of "educational toys". As stated earlier, the two main elements of "Scrabble" are - chance and skill. These elements are absent in a toy. Hence even a "Junior Scrabble" is not an educational toy. It is a game. It remains a board game and in the context of the placement of the entries in Chapter 95 which we have discussed above, in our view, even "Junior Scrabble" will come under Chapter Heading 95.04 of the CETA. - They did not mention the details of the game "Scrabble". Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department – extended period of limitation can be invoked.

  ---

• 2009 (11) TMI 4
  

  Snake and Ladder. – Monopoly - Scrabble/Upwords – classification – the tests to distinguish toys, puzzles and games in the context of Chapter 95 of the CETA - held that - The tests applied by the Department, namely, age of the player, is not correct – matter remitted to tribunal for denovo consideration - "Scrabble/Upwords" is a game falling under Heading 95.04 of CETA

  ---

1 ....678910