Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2011 2011 2011 (3) Central Excise - 2011 (3) 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 321 to 338 of 338 Records

• 2011 (3) TMI 99
  

  Non-compliance of Section 35F - Elevator versus Lift - Deposit 50% of the duty demanded within 4 weeks - There is no evidence placed on record by the appellants to show that all throughout, the unit was being used as freight elevator or as material handling equipment - neither the import of the passenger lift is covered by the Notification in question nor the passenger lift was established to be a freight elevator - The material on record was totally against such claim(the import of lift in question was covered by the Notification No.53/97-Cus)by the appellants - The show-cause notice was essentially to the effect that the lift is not covered by Notification in question - It was the case of the appellants themselves that though it is a passenger lift, it was being used as material handling equipment and therefore it is covered by the said Notification - The burden, therefore, in this case was specifically cast upon the appellants - There was no question of casting the burden upon the department to prove the negative.

  Held that: The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified for ordering pre-deposit of 50% of the duty and thereafter for dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order - Hence in the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 92
  

  Rebuttal - DR has filed the report saying that the order has been passed on the basis of record available in the factory of the appellants and from the records it is clear that no opportunity of rebuttal was given to the appellants during the visit of the Commissioner (Appeals) to their factory - Hence, the matter needs further examination by the Commissioner (Appeals) by giving an opportunity to appellant to rebut the report made by the Commissioner (Appeals) during the visit to their factory on 29.03.2008 - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue afresh

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 68
  

  Grant of Exemption - The applicant has sought a ruling on the eligibility of the transformers for exemption from Central Excise duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March, 2006 - The words “parts” and “components” imply something that which along with others make up a whole, one of the elements of which anything is made up - The scope of exemption has been restricted only to such devices or systems which have been specified in List 5 - Entry in Serial No. 84 uses the expression “devices / systems” because List 5 has some entries pertaining to devices and several other pertaining to systems - In fact the entry at Serial No. 21 of List 5 covers only “parts” and neither a device nor a system - The entry at Serial No. (13) of List 5 covers only the generator and its parts and its scope cannot be expanded to include wind operated electricity generating systems or plants and parts thereof

  Whether the specially designed transformer is a part of wind operated electricity generator to be eligible for exemption by virtue of it being covered under Serial No. 13 of List 5 - In the case of the specially designed transformer for the wind operated electricity generator, it is noticed that it is no doubt an essential part without which the generating system would not function - The following extracts from the sub-chapter titled “ Enercon Annular Generator and Grid Management System” under the Chapter “Grid Integration and Wind Farm Management” are reproduced for an understanding of the various parts and components of wind energy convertors - The applicant is not eligible for the exemption in respect of the specially designed transformers proposed to be manufactured by it, as a part of wind operated electricity generator under Notification No. 6/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March, 2006 - Accordingly, the ruling is given

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 67
  

  Cenvat Credit – As per the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CCE v. HMT (TD) Ltd. at paragraph 17 have held that when the input-credit legally taken and utilised on the dutiable final products, need not be reversed on the final product becoming exempt subsequently - Only if any products are purchased subsequent to the said exemption and if any tax is paid on such inputs, as the final product is exempted from payment of tax, the assessee would not be entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on such inputs - But the Cenvat credit availed on such inputs till the date of exemption, they vest in the assessee and the assessee cannot be divested of that credit as the law does not provide for the same – Hence, the authorities taking advantage of the Notification exempting the final product cannot claim reversal of Cenvat credit either in respect of final product which have come into existence on the date of the Notification or on the inputs stored in the godown or the work-in-progress and finished products – Thus appeal is in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 64
  

  Classification - As per Rule 3(a) of the General Rules for the Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description - Held that : if the product is classifiable under 21.06 product would be exempted under sr.no. 30A of the notification no. 3/2006 dated 1.3.2006 as amended by notification 3/2007 CE dated 1.3.2007 is not required to be adjudicated upon as the product is held to be classifiable under heading 2008 1900 for the purpose of central excise tariff - Appeal is allowed with consequential relief in a favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 60
  

  Pre-deposit - Demand - Penalty - In Para 25 of the impugned order, it is discussed the evidence of non-movement of scrap as could be seen from the information from the DCTO, in-charge of integrated check post at Bheemunivaripalem, Tada Mandal, Nellore Dist. and it proves beyond doubt that the trucks never traveled and the material did not come to factory - the amount already deposited by the appellant is sufficient to hear and dispose off the appeal by the learned Commissioner (A) - he stay applications and appeals are disposed of by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 59
  

  Notional interest - As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of VST Inds. (1998 -TMI - 44800 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), held that notional interest on advances made by the customers is not includable in the sale price unless the department is established that the such an advance payment has depressed the sale price and that such consideration is having a nexus to the sale price of the excisable goods - Here department has failed to establish the fact, hence appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 48
  

  Remission of duty - Inputs were destroyed in fire - Tribunal vide order no. A/203/2005/WZB/CII dated 3.3.2005 which was reported in (2005 -TMI - 53922 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) which alleged the claim of remission of duty on account of fire broken out in the factory of the appellants and the same has attained finality - Hence, the claim of remission of duty on account of fire has been allowed - Appeal is allowed with consequential relief in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 42
  

  Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit- The appellant had cleared exempted goods by utilising end units on which CENVAT credit was availed, hence liable to pay 8% or 10% as the case may be, as the value of exempted finished goods - As per the retrospective amendment of Rule 6 provides for reversal of CENVAT credit attributable to the inputs which were utilised in the manufacturing of finished products, discharging the interest liability thereof by adducing a certificate of a chartered accountant - The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 30
  

  Classification - The electric fans manufactured and cleared by them can be run by connection to a motor installed at a particular place, by a conveyor belt and that the motor can be used for running more than one fan by connecting them by a conveyor belt. Further, the Explanatory Notes to Heading 84.14 clearly states that fans may or may not be fitted with integral motors - Accept the contention of the assessees that complete electric fans (industrial fans) were cleared by them.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 29
  

  Rate of basic customs duty - The case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Ambika Silk Mills, the Tribunal has held that the value of cut pieces or sub-standard goods has to be lower than the value of standard goods – As per Notification No.2/95-CE dt. 4.1.95, the effective rate of duty is 15% ad valorem or Rs.15 per sq. mtr whichever is higher - The assessees adopted the rate of basic customs duty as 17.5% which, they submit, is higher than Rs.15 per sq.mtr - Allowed the appeals in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 19
  

  Cheque Bounced - Section 139 of Negotiable instrument act - Demand – officers of the respondent had conducted a raid they took in their possession certain documents and cheque, as on that date, no liability towards the excise duty - on the basis of the documents so collected, respondent had quantified towards the excise duty - liability of the firm to pay this amount had not attainted finality - cheque in question had not been issued by the petitioner in discharge of the part liability towards the excise duty as has been claimed by the respondent - Since section 138 of the Act not applicable - petition allowed and criminal complaint under section 138/142 of the Act titled Central Excise v. Ms. Veena Ahuja, quashed

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 14
  

  Demand of interest on delayed payment of additional duty of excise - delay in payment - assessee contends that the interest on delayed payment charged at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per day is impermissible, in view of the notification dated 12th May, 2000 issued under Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The said demand is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 11AA and also the notification dated 12th May, 2000 - amount of interest payable was ordered to be re-determined by the competent Authority so that the same conform to the maximum rate of interest, specified by the Departmental Notification No.39/2000 dated 12th May, 2000 and the provisions of Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Petition disposed off

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 12
  

  Exemption - ex parte order - exemption benefits under Notification No. 8/98 - the order of the Joint Commissioner (Tech.) has attained finality and the Review order was ex-parte passed by the Commissioner without any legal competence and further considering the fact that the impugned orders have been passed without hearing the petitioner, this petition deserves to be allowed. - petitioner furnished Bank Guarantee as per the Court’s interim order covering the entire assessed amount, the Bank Guarantee to be returned to the petitioner – Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 11
  

  Exemption - fraud for obtaining the refund under section 11C - Section 11A of the Act not applicable since the issue raised did not concern any approval, acceptance or assessment relating to the rate of duty on or valuation of any excisable goods - issue raised by the assessee related to its entitlement to the benefit of Notification No.33/99-CE - no question of law much less a substantial question of law arise – Even otherwise, the Revenue could not take recourse to Section 11A of the Act when it had a statutory remedy available to it to challenge the order dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Silchar by resorting to the revisional power available under Section 35-E of the Act. - Appeal dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 8
  

  Penalty - Prayer made is that appellants be permitted to deposit the amount of Rs.3.00 crores in 10 monthly installments of Rs. 30.00 lakhs each - appellants suffered huge losses leading to cash crunch and unable to make payment of penalty in lump sum within the time granted by this Court - if the payment is made in installments, the Revenue does not get prejudiced in any way inasmuch the Revenue would be receiving the amount in question, though over a spread of time – Appeal disposed off accordingly

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 4
  

  Retrospective amendment – legislative intention - Cenvat / Modvat Credit on HSD – period 16.3.1995 to 1.4.2000 – Held that: - Since the product High Speed Diesel oil was excluded specifically from the list of eligible inputs in the notifications, there was no question of creation of any right in favour of the appellant to avail such benefit. Therefore, contention that a vested or accrued right is sought to be taken away by giving retrospective effect is without any merit. Consequently, in the facts of this case we are not required to answer whether a vested or accrued right could be taken away with retrospective effect. Further on a conjoint reading of all the notifications it is clearly established that the intention of the Government all along was to exclude the appellants from getting the benefit of the MODVAT credit, therefore, the contentions that the Finance Act violates the vested right is without any basis. The various decisions referred to and relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his contention that the vested right created in their favour could not have been divested by the respondent retrospectively is found to be based on misreading of the language of the aforesaid notifications which do not support, but in fact destroy the very basis of the case of the appellants. – No credit on HSD

  ---

• 2011 (3) TMI 2
  

  Recovery of amount due under compounded levy scheme - application of period of limitation - Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Raghuvar (India) Ltd as reported in (2000 -TMI - 45411 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), this court has categorically stated that Section 11A of the Act is not an omnibus provision which stipulates limitation for every kind of action to be taken under the Act or Rules. An example can be drawn with the Modvat Scheme, because even in that particular scheme, Section 11A of the Act had no application with regard to time limit in the administration of that scheme.

  Importing of elements of one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme of tax administration would be wholly inappropriate as it would disturb the smooth functioning of that unique scheme. The time limit prescribed for one scheme could be completely unwarranted for another scheme and time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Act is no exception.

  ---

1 ....1314151617