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 41 to 60 of 115 Records

• 2011 (10) TMI 411 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Valuation - Appellant Job worker - Show cause notice - Cleared goods by not disclosing cost of free facilities - Held - Entire pipes which were fabricated by the appellant were consumed by M/s. Essar Steel Limited for the purpose of construction of Sardar Sarovar Drinking Water Project. These pipes were not sold by M/s. Essar Limited and hence considered as captively consumed. If the goods were captively consumed, the provisions of Valuation Rules, 2000 will apply.Moreover when invoices were attached to RT-12 department had the knowledge of assessee's action of fabrication of pipes. Hence the show cause notice dated 24.3.2004 is time-barred

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 410 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Clandestine removal - Held That:- It is apparent that except for the shortage in raw material viz., HD which was disputed by the assessee and the statement of the Director, there was no other evidence on record to indicate clandestine manufacture and removal of final products. Thus it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 409 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  SSI Exemption - Held - When in assessee own case the issue head attained finality, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 408 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Personal penalty on fake invoices issued by firm - Held That:- Case remanded back for reconsidering the issue afresh.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 400 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  100% EOU engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn and knitted fabrics - Refund claim of Credit denied on the ground that power plant had started functioning on 31/3/08, the goods in respect of which this refund claim had been filed, had been exported prior to 31/3/08 - Held That:- No one to one relation is required to be established between the availment of Cenvat credit in respect of same inputs and input services and their use in the manufacture of final products, that the appellant were eligible for Cenvat credit in respect of input services as soon as the same had been received by them and payment for the same had been made by them. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 399 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund - Benefit on the basis of "unjust enrichment" is in dispute - Case referred back to original adjudicating authority to decide the issue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 398 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - show-cause notice dt. 25.6.2009 in respect of the exports of goods under bond which were lying in stock on 15.8.2008 when the applicants started availing benefit of notification No. 30/2004 and during the month of October only in certain goods on payment of duty - Appeal is allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 397 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  RG 1 vis a vis Daily production record - Product comes out of reactor in very hot conditions and daily production report maintained on rough estimate basis - Ao issued demand notice as quantity in Daily production report greater than RG 1 - Held that:- Some months the entries in the RG.1 register are more than quantity recorded in the daily production report - Demand on the basis entries made in daily production report which are on estimate basis is not sustainable.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 390 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Clandestine removal - Removal of goods without issue of sales bill - Excise officer relied on statement of Buyers - Adjudicating authority gave offer to pay duty based on cum duty price - Held That:- Duty liability has been evaded further payment of cum duty price is justified. Penalty was reduced to 25%.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Demand - In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents said that the amount stated in the Show Cause Notice to be unexplained amount was towards gunnitting and epoxy coating of MS pipes to be done at project sites - Revenue has not made out any case that at the time of removal from the factory, the clearance is not against sale - Unless it is proved that if the risk of any damage to the pipes stored at project site till the processes were carried out, was to the respondents account, it cannot be held that the place of sale was the project site - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 377 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Principle of Natural Justice - Held That:- When the appeals filed by revenue were allowed but no notice of personal hearing were given to applicant. The order stands against Principle of Natural Justice. Order set aside after waiver of Pre-deposit of duty interest and penalty.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 364 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat Credit - Capital goods destroyed - Insurance claim received - Revenue contended incurance claim is cum duty - Held That:- there cannot be a demand for duty in absence of removal/destruction. In this case, as already observed, there is no evidence to show that the capital goods have been destroyed or removed. When the capital goods have not been destroyed/removed and are in the factory and are in use, CENVAT Credit taken cannot be demanded. In this case, it is not because of non-use of capital goods that the CENVAT Credit that is being demanded but due to the fact of insurance claim amount received by the appellant. Treating it as cum duty amount, duty has been demanded. In this case, the demand has been made under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The first element that has to be shown for such demand is the fact that the CENVAT Credit has been taken and input/capital goods have not been used in accordance with the rules. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 362 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Dutiability - Cotton yarn for use in handloom are exempted but in other forms like Corn, Cheese excise duty is payable - Investigation reveled assessee has cleared such goods as corn, chease - Show cause issued demanding duty, interest & mandatory penalty imposed - Appellant argued that Commissioner relied on statement of third party namely buyer - Held That:- When appellant has failed to furnish any evidence no merit in filing appeal before first and second appellate authority. - If the uncontroverted statement of the purchaser of the goods is taken to be correct, the case against the appellants stands proved

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 361 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Pre Deposit of penalty pending appeals - Excise officer visited factory and found Stock not accounted in RG-1 - Cenvat credit amounting to Rs 3,80,000 was found short - appellant paid sum during investigation - AO leveid Penalty - Held - Pre-deposit of penalty imposed on the appellant and the Managing Director is waived and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeals.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 355 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
  

  Power of Tribunal for waiver of pre-deposit - Commercial training or coaching services - Revenue argued tribunal granted stay without considering undue hardship case remanded for de novo consideration - Property attached worth ₹ 27 crore further liability denied as assessee charitable institution - interest of revenue secured - Held That:- Considering the interest of Revenue and the hardship, we direct that the respondent shall deposit 1/3 rd of the amount of service tax and penalty, which comes about ₹ 80.00 crores as pre-deposit under Section 35-F of the 1944.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 348 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Credit of duty paid on raw materials cleared as 'Scrap' – Held that:- In the present case, Raw material is being tested before the same is accounted for by stores department. Certain material which is contaminated is cleared as scrap. In these circumstances, the raw material on which credit has been availed is not used for in or in relation to the manufacture of final excisable goods, therefore, the assessee is not entitled for credit on such quantity of raw material. Hence, order imposing demand alongwith interest is confirmed. - Decided against the assessee.

  In respect of penalty, assessee filed necessary declarations thus, no suppression with intent to evade duty can be alleged against the assessee. Thus, order whereby the penalty is set aside is upheld. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 346 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal - Tribunal rejected revenue plea on account of procedural irregularity - appeal signed as well as filed by commissioner - Held That:- Said amendment in Section 35B was effective from 13.05.05 however the appeal signed by commissioner on 19.04.06 being no irregularity, case remanded back to Tribunal for fresh perusal.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 345 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Stay petition - remission of duty - Held That:- When the order of original adjudicating authority is in favour of assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) is hearing the appeal in favour of department, Commissioner is bound to give findings on the various proposals in the show-cause notice. - Matter remanded back.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 337 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Liability to pay interest u/s 11AB of the Central Excise Act on the differential amount of duty paid by assessee under supplementary invoices issued after the clearance of the goods - supplementary invoices issued for recovery of differential price and for payment of differential duty – interest levied from the date of clearance of the goods to the date of payment of differential duty – Held that:- The issue stands in favor of the Revenue. See Commissioner Vs. SKF India Ltd (2009 - TMI - 34092 - Supreme Court), Commissioner Vs. Presscom Product (2011 - TMI - 207372 - Karnataka High Court).

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 336 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  CENVAT credit in respect of MS angles, plates, sheets, rods, etc., treated as 'inputs' by assessee used for strengthening/maintenance of old structures and also for fabrication of capital goods – Held that:- The matter is remanded to the original authority for considering all the relevant aspects viz to examine whether MS angles, sheets, etc., qualified to be 'capital goods' in terms of any ruling of the apex court, whether the above items could alternatively be regarded as 'inputs' in terms of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to consider earlier orders of adjudication in favor of assessee relied by him and lastly, the competent authority to ascertain the basic facts of the case is the original authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

123456