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 61 to 80 of 115 Records

• 2011 (10) TMI 330 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit in respect of duty paid on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plants and machineries in factory– Held that:- Various judgements of High Courts have held that Cenvat credit can be availed on welding electrodes which are used for maintenance of plant and machinery. See Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (2010 - TMI - 77888 - Chhaitisgarh High Court ) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit in respect of welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of plants and machineries – Held that:- Various judgments of High Courts have held that Cenvat credit can be availed on welding electrodes which are used for maintenance of plant and machinery. See CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd (2010 - TMI - 77831 - Karnataka High Court) - Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 320 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Reduction of penalty by Commissioner(Appeals) - penalty imposed on ground of filing quarterly ER-3 returns instead of monthly ER-I return – Held that:- Assessee was under bonafide belief that on account of being SSI unit they were not required to file monthly ER-I returns. Lapse on the part of the assessee was technical one. No infirmity in order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 304 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Refund of duty – Period of limitation – suo-moto credit availed of duty paid under original invoices cancelled – subsequently paid the duty related to original invoices and refund claimed – Refund granted by lower authority on ground that no limitation was prescribed in the Central Excise Act for refund claim of the above kind - Held that:- In case of BDH Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE (A), Mumbai-I (2008 - TMI - 30889 - CESTAT Mumbai) it was held that no suo motu credit of any duty paid in excess could be taken by the assessee and that all types of refund claims required to be filed u/s 11B of the Central Excise Act. In view of aforesaid decision the suo motu credit taken in April 2007 has to be treated as non est in law. Hence, refund claim filed by the assessee on 5.12.2007 was undisputedly for an amount of duty covered by two invoices of November 2006 which were cancelled by them. 'Relevant date' u/s 11B of the Act for purposes of refund claim in question is thus 05.12.06. None of the authorities took note of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision. Therefore, Order granting refund is absurd & liable to be set aside.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 303 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Availement of Cenvat Credit before receipt - Capital goods received on 22.12.05 credit availed in november - Assessee a partnership firm liable to pay tax for quater ended on January - Held That:- When the date of payment was 5th January, 2006, on this count, it does not make any difference that the credit was shown to have taken in the month of November or December 2005. Credit available upto 31/12/2005, could have been utilized towards payment of Service Tax. The appellants have made credit entry in their record in the month of November, 2005, instead of making the same in December, 2005, by itself cannot be made a ground for denial of credit on such technical ground,

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 292 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  SSI - Applicant manufacturing cakes and pastries under brand name kwality subsequently named changed to Jamal bakery - Revenue argued brand name kwality do not belong to applicant - non compliance of Section 35F appeal dismissed - Held That:- Case remanded back on direction to deposit 90,000 only.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 285 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat Credit on TR 6 Challan prior to 16.06.2005 - In view of Nestle India Ltd Vs. CCE Goa (2007 - TMI - 2015 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) credit was allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 284 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat Credit - Goods destroyed in heavy floods, were cleared as waste and scrap - AO demanded proportionate reversal for MODVAT availed - held that:- where the capital goods became waste and scrap by use over time and in case where such goods became waste and scrap because of fire accident, there was no provision for making proportionate reversal of MODVAT credit. Similarly in the case of Tata Advance Materials (2008 -TMI - 34885 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) this Tribunal held that there was no provision for demanding CENVAT credit taken on the capital goods when they were put to use and subsequently destroyed due to fire accident. Thus, there was no provision in the law at the relevant time for reversal of CENVAT credit availed on capital goods if the same were destroyed due to natural calamities. - case decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 255 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand - Held - Without locating a single buyer and any investigation, merely on the basis of statements and chits recovered, duty cannot be demanded.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 254 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Common Input - Appellants manufacturing the refined oil and hydrogenised vanaspati - By products soap stock arises - CENVAT claimed on Caustic Soda, Phosphoric Acid, Hydrogen - Soap Stock was further processed to make Acid oil and cleared under Notification No.115/75 at "NIL" rate - AO demanded reversal of credit 8% of the price of the exempted goods - Held - In view of Priyanka Refineries Ltd (2009 - TMI - 76088 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), it was held that the acid oil manufactured out of such waste would definitely be not covered by the provisions of Rule 6(2). Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 235 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Procurement of Excisable Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty - Held that:- When manufacturer could not use the subject goods for intended purpose the supplier is to bring back the goods and remove them at normal rate, it do not create any differential duty liability on supplier - Merely because the supplier has not brought back the goods to his factory to avoid transportation expenses but clears the same on payment of differential duty from the premises of the OEM themselves, it does not create an interest liability on the supplier of the goods. Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 224 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of Pre Depost of Duty Interest - Assessee pleaded no credit has been availed in respect of input used in manufacture of exempted goods - Held - Facts requires verification - order set aside after waiving pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 220 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Facility of re-credit of amount paid through PLA - Notification No. No.39/2001 - AO denied Credit only on the ground that the appellant has not followed the procedure laid down. Case remanded back to original adjudicating authority.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 215 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  SSI Exemptions - Assessee factory located in rural areas - cleared branded goods sepeartely and paid duty -Show cause notice was issued that assessee wrongly included the value of branded goods and availed SSI benefits - Held - the assessee had never claimed this benefit - Revenue is trying to thrust upon the assessee that the branded goods manufactured were cleared without payment of duty - Revenue could not furnish any evidence or any certificate from the authorities during the relevant time, when the Show Cause Notice was issued. Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 210 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Valuations - Goods sold to Related Person - Held - Where in past year good were sold to at a lower price to independent buyers when compared with related person, in current year such valuation cannot be questioned when sold at lower price to related person as against Independent buyers.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 206 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Refund Claim of Cenvat - DTA converted into 100% EOU - Held that:- Rule 100H of Central excise after conversion into a 100% EOU, the appellants are not entitled to the MODVAT Scheme - CBEC Circular No. 77/99 is very clear in this regard and MODVAT credit if any lying in the balance of a DTA unit is liable to lapse after conversion into a 100% EOU.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 205 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Unjust Enrichment - Refund credited to consumer welfare fund - Held that:- Invoices were stamped that duty has not been recovered. - Enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner from the customers and the customers disclosed that the goods were received on payment of appropriate duty. - During the argument, a specific query was made by the Bench regarding how the amounts in question are reflected in their books of account, the appellant failed to show any entries in respect of the amounts in question whether the same were shown as receivable. - appellant failed to show that burden of duty has not been passed on - refund cannot be given to him.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Provisional Assessment - Assessee dealing in two categories of goods -With respect to certain items, the provisional value adopted was less than the final value arrived and resulted in short payment of duty of Rs.10,63,41 however in respect of other item provisional value has resulted in excess payment of Rs 1,77,20,157 thus net excess of 1,66,56,740. Department demanded interest of Rs 1,34,634 on short payment of Rs.10,63,41 - Held that:- In the entire scheme of Rule 7, there is no indication that when an assessee is permitted to pay duty in pursuance of a provisional assessment order, if he is dealing with more than one goods, they have to be treated separately. Even though the duty payable under the Act is to be calculated under each head of each case ultimately it is the total duty payable for all the goods which are the subject matter of the provisional assessment and final assessment which is to be taken into consideration.Therefore demand of revenue is unjustified.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 198 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  DTA supplied goods to SEZ - Revenue demanded 10% of value of the exempted goods supplied to SEZ - Held - In view of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the supplies made by DTA units to SEZ units will amount to export for the purpose of all export benefits. The benefit shall include benefits available in respect of exports provided by exception to Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Thus appeal of revenue was turned down.

  ---

• 2011 (10) TMI 196 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat Credit - Assessee 100% EOU - Revenue denied refund claim as supplies to 100% EOUs are only deemed exports and provisions of Rule 5 are not applicable - Held - In view of CCE Vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries (2010 -TMI - 205858 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) case decided in favour of assessee.

  Time limit stipulated under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable in the case of refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004

  ---

123456