Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2010 2010 2010 (10) Central Excise - 2010 (10) 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 141 to 160 of 166 Records

• 2010 (10) TMI 182 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty – Delay payment of duty and interest beyond period of 30 days - penalty imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the penalty under Rule 25 leviable subject to the provisions of Section 11AC and in this case - there is no allegation against the appellants that they have not paid the duty with any mala fide intentions - penalty under Rule 25 is not leviable against the appellants - liable for penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appeal partly allowed.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 181 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Cenvat credit – If the job worker was not liable to pay excise duty while returning the manufactured goods to the supplier of raw materials, then the question of the supplier of the raw materials claiming full credit under Rule 57B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 does not arise at all. - Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 179 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Computer assembled in Collage of Engineering and Technology – Exemption - computers were assembled along with the assistance of students and this clearly show that the assembly of the computers was done at the time of imparting of training to the students - benefit of the notification available

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 178 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Interest – provisional assessment - differential duty was paid prior to the date of final assessment - assessee is not liable to pay interest - appeal is disposed accordingly

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 176 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Demand - shortages recorded in the Panchnama – Revenue contended that figure mentioned in panchnama due to calculation error and seized records indicating higher quantum – Tribunal order holding proceedings not extedable beyond shortages recorded in panchnama and reducing duty demand sustainable – no substantial question of law – appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 175 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Spent solvent – Excisabillity - It has been clearly brought out that the spent solvents had already been utilized in the factory and latter it had undergone further purification for reuse. The excess spent solvents were sold to the outsiders, as it had lost its value and therefore, what was sold was not new goods but only spent solvents which had undergone certain purification process. Such purification process of chemicals has been held to be not a process of manufacture as held in the case of S.D. Fine Chem, this issue has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. - department accepted the assessee's contention that at the relevant period the spent solvent is not a marketable product after process of manufacture – Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 174 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Penalty – storage outside factory without permission - permission was denied in the month of April, 1997 and the seizure was made in respect of the scrap even outside the factory on 6-5-1997 - goods were seized outside factory but in the adjudication order the adjudicating authority has not confiscated the same - scrap which was seized outside factory was duly entered in the records of the plant lot-wise - Appellant asked for permission to store the scrap outside the factory without payment of duty and earlier to the seizure also Appellant following the same procedure and it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the scrap was sold in auctions from the township store on payment of appropriate duty therefore allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty, not sustainable

  Penalty – storage outside factory without permission - excisable goods removed in contravention of any provision of the Rules - imposition of penalty under this provision of Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules mens rea not required therefore as Appellant removed the scrap in question from the factory without payment of duty which was specifically auctioned and appropriate duty has been paid Appellants are liable for penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 171 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Re-import – SAD liability - Notification No. 94/96, dated 16-12-1996 is a combined exemption notification in respect of basic customs duty, additional duty of customs and special duty of customs - goods are covered under Serial No. 1(d) as these were originally exported under bond without payment of Central Excise duty – Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 168 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Cenvat credit – Assessee not in a position to produce octroi receipts - Transfer of goods from one unit to other unit - no material on record evidencing payment of octori duty – Held that: - Cenvat credit not allowed - no merit in the Appeal - Appeal is dismissed

  It is a common knowledge that if the goods are to be removed from one Municipal or Corporation area to another Municipal or Corporation area, the entry tax, namely; Octroi is required to be paid. Had goods been transported from Nashik to Thane, the octroi duty ought to have been paid by the Appellants. The very fact that, there is no material on record evidencing payment of octori duty leads us to conclude against the Appellants defence that goods were taken from Unit at Nashik to Unit at Thane. The findings recorded by all the authorities below thus, cannot be faulted with.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 167 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty – paid 25% of penalty after adjudication order – Duty demand paid before adjudication order - interest leviable under Section 11AB, 25% of the Penalty paid within one month of receipt of the Order in Original - benefit of the proviso to Section 11AC wherein penalty leviable could only be 25% of the amount of duty – Allowed – Revenue appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 164 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty - Whether the adjudicating or appellate authority had any discretion as to the quantum of penalty envisaged to be imposed under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 57-I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - On the facts and circumstances we are of the view that the aforesaid questions of law do arise from the orders of the Tribunal which require consideration by this Court - Tribunal directed to draw the statement of case and refer the aforesaid questions of law.

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 152 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit – Deemed credit - whether the cash discount, processing charges including colours and chemicals, transportation charges and profit margin were to be taken into the value of the fabrics calculated on the date of applicability of the Notification or not - appellant included all the expenses in the value of fabrics to claim credit as per Notification 35/03-C.E - cash discount, processing charges including the colours and chemical, transport, profit and margin are to be deducted from the value on which the appellant has taken the credit

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 140 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand – Default in payment of duty - Notification No. 13/2006-C.E., a defaulting assessee liable to pay excise duty for each consignment at the time of removal, without utilizing CENVAT credit, until the date for payment of the outstanding amount including interest thereon - Since the assessee continued to utilize CENVAT credit instead of paying duty through PLA, the demand requires to be sustained

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 139 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Appeal by Department - Authorisation - Tribunal is not entitled to review the formation of opinion by the Commissioner - Tribunal cannot factually ascertain whether there is compliance with the statutory requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 35B of the Act, namely, fulfilment of the mandatory pre-requisite condition before an appeal is lodged with the Tribunal - it is not mere formality but the Review Committee has to arrive at the decision whether the impugned order was legal or proper or not and whether appeal to be filed or not - decision taken in this case is not of Review Committee hence, the authorisation is defective

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 131 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Clandestine removal – Shortage of goods - stock verification disclosed a book stock of 1214.579 metric tons when the physical stock available was only 123.500 metric tons of clinkers - shortage of clinkers at the time of inspection was noted based on the stock register, that such inspection was carried on in the presence of the senior officials, who did not raise any protest at the time of stock taking - actual manufacture of cement not brought into accounts – Held that: - The inference drawn by the second respondent based on shortage of clinkers and the excess quantity of limestone quarried during the relevant period was sufficient enough for the authorities to conclude as to the ultimate quantity of Portland cement which could have been produced from such excess quantity, which were not noted in the stock register, was well justified and we do not find any illegality or irregularity in such a conclusion drawn by the authorities for the levy of duty and the demand of duty imposed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification - of plastic laminated aluminium foil - under the Heading 7607.60 or under Heading 39.20 - Tribunal relied upon a decision of this Court order – dismissing appeal as same not filed against another order, held goods to be classifiable under Heading 7607.60 – Held that: - same issue came to be considered by this Court in another decision namely Sharp Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - product should be classified under Tariff Heading 39.20 - appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Waste material - soft cotton waste - is a reject and residue arising in the processes – dutiability – Held that: - cotton waste is not the processed form of cotton but it is a by-product quite different form of cotton though containing cotton fibre which cannot be used as ordinary cotton - order passed by the Tribunal is required to be set aside - back to the Tribunal, for the purposes of giving its decision on all the issues like limitation and merit - appeals disposed of

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 123 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure – Bank guarantee - wrongly claimed cenvat credit – confiscation of dumpers – dump trucks on which Cenvat Credit was irregularly availed and utilized are liable for confiscation under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - principles of natural justice were followed by the Respondent Department - bank guarantee for 25% of the value of the dump trucks, in addition to execution of B-11 Bond – Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 114 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty - reduction in mandatory penalty - Held that: - non-payment or short payment of duty, the penalty clause would automatically get attracted and the authority has no discretion in the matter - quantum of penalty specified under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be reduced by the authorizes and no discretion in this behalf is vested with the adjudicating authorities - assessee had taken a plea that non-payment was bona fide as the assessee was under the impression that the goods being not branded were not excisable - In these circumstances matter remit the case back to the CESTAT

  ---

• 2010 (10) TMI 93 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Appeal - This is against an order passed by the Commissioner under Rule 16B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - declining permission for removal of copper anode and copper cathode - these goods were cleared to their sister unit for conversion into finished goods which were to be removed for home consumption on payment of duty or for export without payment of duty - SDR has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appeal is not maintainable as the impugned order, according to him, is an administrative order - Held that: - Commissioner appears to have overlooked the fact that these goods were cleared to their sister unit for conversion into finished goods which were to be removed for home consumption on payment of duty or for export without payment of duty. If the goods resulting from the processing of copper anode and copper cathode were to be accepted as 'finished' goods to be cleared in the aforesaid manner, the copper anode and copper cathode were to be legitimately treated as 'semi finished' goods, which attracted Rule 16B - Rule 16B applicable

  ---

1 ....456789