Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2011 2011 2011 (10) Central Excise - 2011 (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 101 to 115 of 115 Records

• 2011 (10) TMI 93 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Manufacture - Whether user of term on the product 'Pure Water' is branding of goods - Re-pacing of Pure Water - from bulk pack/ in tanker load to 5 litres Jars and carboys - Held that:- 'Pure Water', by any stretch of imagination can not be considered a brand name. There is no evidence on record brought by the Revenue as to hold that word 'Pure Water' was registered as brand name. - classification of the product sought by the appellant under Chapter heading No. 2201.11, is correct and the classification done by the Revenue authorities under Chapter heading No. 2201.19 is, incorrect.

  Classification of the product 'WIDAL-SALMONELLA ANIGENS SET' - Held that:- the classification of product 'WIDAL-SALMONELLA ANIGENS KIT' would be correct by classified under Chapter heading 30.02, as claimed by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 92 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Classification of goods - 'Nomark' cream - cosmetic product or Ayurvedic medicine - Held that:- the product in question i.e. Nomark is a medicament classifiable under heading 3003.39 and is not a cosmetic product classifiable under heading 3304. The revenue has not discharged its burden to prove that the product was known in the market as cosmetics. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  Related person - whether SDA and OPL are related persons in terms of Section 4(4)(c ) of CEA, 1944 - held that:- OPL was a limited company whereas SDA was a proprietory firm of Mrs. Geeta Sehgal. The mere fact that Mrs. Geeta Sehgal was holding 10% share capital of OPL is not sufficient to treat both as related persons. The department has failed to prove any mutuality of interest or money flow back in two units. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 83 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Clearance of inputs and capital goods on loan basis to another unit of the assessee - scope of SCN - held that:- In the show cause notice dated 18/10/2004 there is no proposal for recovery of duty under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the proposal was restricted to imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules,2000 and Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The show cause notice also proposed recovery of interest at appropriate rates under Section 11AB. However, while passing the order dated 23/12/2005 the adjudicating authority confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,53,394/- under Section 11A of the Act and appropriated the duty amount already paid. Thus, it is clear that the adjudicating authority has traversed beyond the show cause notice.

  In the instant case inasmuch as the appellant had discharged the duty liability on his own ascertainment on 05/01/2002, the question of issue of a notice under Section 11A(1) did not arise. - in respect of the demand which arising from 11/05/2001, interest liability accrue under Section 11AB and even in respect of demands arising prior to 11/05/2001 interest liability will accrue if the payments have been made on or after 11/05/2001. Thus, the demand for interest at the appropriate rates under Section 11AB is sustainable for the period from 11/05/2001 onwards - Levy of interest confirmed - levy of penalty u/s 11AC dropped.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 82 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Captive consumption - exemption under notification no. 67/95 - the department took the view that the exemption availed by the assessee under Notfn.No.67/95 in respect of tops, yarn and grey fabrics manufactured by them and used/contained in the finished fabrics stock/WIP (which is now exempted under Notfn.No.30/04) is not available to them for captive consumption because the condition of the Notfn. No.67/95 requires the final goods to be dutiable for availing the exemption under this Notification. - Held that:- since the appellants have opted for Notification No.30/04, the benefit of the Notification No.67/95 is not applicable to them on the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Relying on decision of Tribunal in case of Cheviot Co.Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 537 - CESTAT, KOLKATA), we hold that they are not entitled to exemption under Notification 30/2004. - Decided against the assessee.

  Extended period of limitation - Held that:- extended period has rightly been invoked in the show-cause notice by the department and since the appellants have failed to supply the quantity and value of the goods, the finding of the Commissioner that intent to evade payment of duty is proved and accordingly, the penalty under Sec.11AC of the Central Excise Act and interest payable under Sec.11AB is also upheld.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 70 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Supplementary invoice - Levy of interest on additional duty (Differential duty) - Held that:- hon'ble apex court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. SKF India Ltd. (2009 -TMI - 34092 - SUPREME COURT) had held that interest is leviable in case there is a delay in payment of duty and differential amounts are collected by raising supplementary invoices on account of price escalation. This position was further re-confirmed by the hon'ble apex court in the case of CCE vs. International Auto Ltd. - 2010 (1)TMI -151 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Decided in favor of revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 69 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Wrong availment of cenvat credit - fraudulent activity - Held that:- it appears that all the evidentiary materials on record were duly considered by the adjudicating authority. The affidavit in question was not before that authority. Even the assessee (GS Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd.) did not rely on any such affidavit in their reply to the show-cause notice. It is surprising to note that the appellate authority chose to permit the assessee to bring on record the said affidavit. - A crucial fact was either overlooked or ignored by the appellate authority and the same is that an amount equal to the credit in question was paid by the assessee prior to issue of show-cause notice and the same was appropriated by the adjudicating authority. - Coupled with this is the fact that the said payment was not under protest and that this payment was made close on the heels of admission of lapse under Section 14 of Central Excise Act. - Matter remanded to commissioner (appeals) for fresh decision.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 68 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Manufacture of brass sheets/circles - Clandestine removal of goods - confiscation of goods - exemption under Notification No.5/98, dt.2.6.98 at Sr.No.207. - Held that:- the notification is very clear and the notification under consideration is predecessor of notification considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the words used are similar. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Jaipur Vs Mewar Bartan Nirman Udyog 2008 (2008 -TMI - 30906 - SUPREME COURT), is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the goods manufactured by the appellant are totally exempt from payment of duty. Since the goods are totally exempt from payment, question of taking registration, accounting the goods manufactured does not arise. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 67 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit - general industrial waste - Revenue contended that credit was not pertaining to cenvatable capital goods on which cenvat credit appeared to be taken because they failed to produce any substantial documents/records, that may be in support of the contention of the appellant - documents have not been considered by the lower appellate authority and are required to be considered for the purpose of determining whether assessees are liable to pay the duty - set aside the impugned order - held that Fresh order shall be passed after extending a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants - appeal is thus allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 56 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat Credit - simultaneous depreciation was claimed, appellant filed revised income tax returns and intimated the department on 19.3.2007. However, show cause notice was issued on 24.1.2008 - appellant had only produced a certificate from Chartered Accountant - appellant had filed revised return which resulted in reduced depreciation - in two years the revised depreciation claim is actually more than which was claimed earlier and therefore the matter is required to be reconsidered - once the revised return is filed, the demand for cenvat credit cannot be sustained - figures of depreciation claimed or to be claimed required proper explanation and they shall produce revised income tax return and detailed explanation about the depreciation claimed so that original adjudicating authority is satisfied that no depreciation has been claimed in respect of the duty element on capital goods on which the credit has been taken - impugned order is set-aside, matter is remanded to original adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 52 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat credit of service tax - service tax on rent - appellant by mistake represented that service tax was paid along with rent for the residence of Managing Director, whereas in reality the building was taken on rent for Corporate Office only - appellant has made a mistake in representing the facts correctly - Learned Counsel fairly agrees to deposit 50% of the service tax demanded - matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 51 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Mandatory penalty - the Supreme Court in the case of Dharamendra Textile Processors (2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT ) had left the issue of the vires of Rule 96ZO open to be dealt with by the High Court which was eventually decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 202136 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ), in which, it was held that there can not be any equal amount of penalty without mens rea being established. We have gone through the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. (2010 -TMI - 202136 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT ) and find that Rule 96ZO imposes an unreasonable restriction and is violative of Section 37 of the Act which clearly provides that a Rule can be framed only to the extent that it contravenes the provision of any such rule with intent to evade payment on duty. - Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the penalty which was rightly upheld by the Tribunal.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 50 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat credit - grey fabrics i.e. unprocessed stock of fabrics - Notification No. 35/2003-CE covers unprocessed fabrics as finished goods - Tribunal concluded that man-made grey fabrics is definitely finished product for the manufacturer of such grey fabrics - It is definitely an input for processor who is taking these grey fabrics for further processing - If the processor had purchased directly from the manufacturer of grey fabrics, the grey fabrics purchased will be undoubtedly and undisputedly an inputs in the hands of the processor - no merits in the appeals - Tax Appeals stand dismissed - decided against the revenue

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 38 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
  

  Area Based Exemption - The assessee opted to avail nil rate of duty with effect from 8th April, 2004 under the said Notification No. 50/2003. At that stage, the assessee had already availed CENVAT credit under the Rules, amounting to ₹ 4,78,260/- on inputs/work in progress/finished goods. - Assessee reversed the credit under the direction of superintendent and later filed a refund claim of the cenvat credit so reversed - held that:- CENVAT credit which was validly availed at the time of the receipt of the inputs for the manufacture of the final product, on which excise duty was payble, but subsequently utilized for the manufacture of the same final product which became exempted from payment of excise duty pursuant to a subsequent notification, was not liable to be reversed under Rule 6(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Interest on Refund - Commencement of liability of revenue to pay Interest - expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made - Held that:- liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Demand - Whether the metal scrap or waste generated whilst repairing of worn out machineries or parts of cement manufacturing plant amounts to manufacture, and thereby, is excisable to excise duty - Section Note has very limited purpose of extending coverage to the particular items to the relevant tariff entry in the Schedule for determining the applicable rate of duty and it cannot be readily construed to have any deeming effect in relation to the process of manufacture as contemplated by Section 2(f) of the Act, unless expressly mentioned in the said Section Note - The natural meaning of the word `process' is a mode of treatment of certain materials in order to produce a good result, a species of activity performed on the subject-matter in order to transform or reduce it to a certain stage - In the present case, it is clear that the process of repair and maintenance of the machinery of the cement manufacturing plant, in which M.S. scrap and Iron scrap arise, has no contribution or effect on the process of manufacturing of the cement, which is the excisable end product, as since welding electrodes, mild steel, cutting tools, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, M.S. Beams etc. which are used in the process of repair and maintenance are not raw material used in the process of manufacturing of the cement, which is the end product - Held that: the metal scrap and waste arising out of the repair and maintenance work of the machinery used in manufacturing of cement, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as a subsidiary product to the cement which is the main product - Appeal is allowed

  ---

1 ....23456