Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2011 2011 2011 (8) Central Excise - 2011 (8) 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 176 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 881
  

  Penalty - After verification of physical stock, 3.067 MTs of finished goods were found in excess than the book stock - The excess finished goods and excess raw materials were seized on the ground that they were not maintaining the record properly - Undisputedly, the excess finished goods and excess raw materials involved in this case, the department could not show any evidence that there was any attempt on the part of the respondent to remove the goods clandestinely - Held that: the provisions of Rule 25 are subject to the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and there is not allegation against the respondent that there was any attempt for clandestine removal in this case

  Regarding confiscation of raw material - under Rule 25, the semi-finished processed goods are not liable to confiscation because Rule 25 is applicable only to the finished excisable goods - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 880
  

  Refund of bank guarantee amount - - unjust enrichment - Provisional assessment - Differential duty - This is a fact that while ordering provisional assessment by the department the assessee was asked to execute B-13 Bond duly supported by the securities in form of the Bank Guarantee, which were later on encashed by the department - held that:- Bank Guarantee cannot be held as payment of duty and, therefore, refund does not attract the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - refund allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 874
  

  Condonation of delay - There is a finding of fact that the order was received by the Appellant on 11 February 2005 as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card - Under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35, the Commissioner for sufficient cause may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of 30 days - Time limitation - Commissioner (Appeals) is not a Court and therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 873
  

  Refund - Principle of unjust enrichment - Provisional assessment - High Court in the case of Mauria Udyog Ltd. vs. C.C.E. reported in [2006 -TMI - 929 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA (CHANDIGARH)]. It was clearly held therein that once it is not shown that the clearance of goods was made on provisional basis, reduction of price at a later date could not be made foundation for seeking refund - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 872
  

  Right to appeal with option to avail compounding of offence - Rule 4(3) of the Central Excise (Compounding of Offences) Rules, 2005 - Petitioner submitted that, question runs counter to the language employed in Section 9A(2) of the Act and also travels beyond the rule making power as enshrined under Section 37(2)(id) of the Act. It is his submission that by incorporating such a provision by way of an amendment in the Rules in 2007, the right to appeal of the petitioner under Section 35G of the Act stands frustrated and once a statutory right of appeal is provided in an enactment, the same cannot be defeated by envisaging such conditions, as has been done in the Rule in question. - The compounding amount has not been defined or prescribed in the Act though it is implicit that to compound an offence, payment of the compounding amount has to be made - when there is a compounding for the purpose admitting a tax evasion, the condition stipulated for entertaining the application cannot be regarded as onerous - The manner, while prescribing, can lay down certain conditions precedent, it does not whittle down the purpose of compounding - Petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 857
  

  Classification - "connectors with wires" - Connectors comprising of outer plastic moulded housing, terminals and pins made of brass, phosphor bronze, copper plated with tin. - These connectors are male connectors and female connectors. - Held That:- Classifiable under 8536.90 and not under Heading 8544 (CCE vs. Unicon Connectors (2008 -TMI - 31950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI))

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 856
  

  Assessable Value - Freight from factory gate to place of removal - Held That:- In view of CCE NOIDA vs. Accurate Meters Ltd. (2009 - TMI - 32539 - SUPREME COURT), freight and insurance charges for delivery to the customers premises are not includable and the amount claimed by way of transportation and insurance charges cannot be considered for determining the value of the goods supplied. Appeal or revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 855
  

  Valuation - Goods Cleared through Depots - Held That:- In view of CCE Nashik vs. VIP Industries (2011 -TMI - 211414 - CESTAT, Mumbai), equalized freight is required to be added in the transaction value for the period from 1.7.2000 onwards. Appeal of revenue allowed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 841
  

  Assessable Value - Deduction of freight - Held That:- In view of CCE NOIDA vs. Accurate Meters Ltd (2009 - TMI - 32539 - SUPREME COURT), Freight Charges are not includible in calculating Assessable value.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 835
  

  Disallowance of Modvat credit - Penalty - The show-cause notice as well as the order-in-original both were issued after the 23-7-1996, the date on which, the new Rules 57-I(4) and 57-I(5) were introduced - Held that: the invoice in question on which the credit has been taken were issued by M/s. Tara Re-rolling Mills and on investigation, it was found that M/s. Tara Re-rolling Mills had not taken any manufacturing activity in their factory and issued fabricated invoices by manipulating statutory records - appellants are liable to penalty as well as interest - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 831
  

  Valuation under 4A of MRP - warranty charges - Held That:- After sales service charges for four years being optional, not includible for valuation purpose while determining MRP under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 830
  

  Extended Period of limitation - valuation - Penalty - Held That:- Appellant themselves stated raw materials and components/parts are supplied by their clients free of cost and their value is not includible as per Section 4. They also intimated that they will be paying excise duty only on the inputs used by the appellants in the manufacture of final product. Therefore, there cannot be any suppression of fact. - Extended period cannot be invoked.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 828
  

  Determination of value of excisable goods - clearances to sister unit for captive consumption as well as to independent buyers - Gunapradhan Principle - Held That:- In view of ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI (2006 - TMI - 47731 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), (a) the provisions of Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules will not apply in a case where some part of the production is cleared to independent buyers; (b) the provisions of Rule 4 are in any case to be preferred over the provisions of Rule 8 not only for the reason that they occur first in the sequential order of the Valuation Rules but also for the reason that in a case where both the rules are applicable, the application of Rule 4 will lead to a determination of a value which will be more consistent and in accordance with the parent statutory provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 827
  

  Duty liability on the scrap generated at the end of job workers during the course of machining of the inputs/castings - Held That :- As per amended Rule 57AC no duty liability - assessees are not liable to pay duty on the scrap generated at the job workers' end. - see Rocket Engineering (2006 - TMI - 3721 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY).

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 826
  

  Undervaluation of Clearances to Sister Concern - Show Cause Notice - Appellant filed price list approved by competent authority - In view of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (1992 - TMI - 43882 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI), it is difficult to understand as to how the Revenue has concluded that there was misstatement or suppression of facts. Penalty cannot be imposed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 822
  

  Appeal - Held That:- Issues were not discussed by High Court, except for saying that the case is not a fit case to be interfered with. Case set aside for diposal de novo.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 821
  

  Deemed credit under Notification 58/97 - Supplier of inputs has not paid Central Excise duty and given a wrong certificate about dischargement under Rule 96ZP - Held That:- under Rule 57A(6) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the manufacturer covered by compuneded levy scheme, is deemed to have discharged its duty liability. - in case the annual capacity of production of input manufacturer because of dispute cannot be determined at the time of issue of invoice, the scheme of conveyance of deemed credit cannot be put on hold and the substantive benefit of deemed credit cannot be denied to the input purchaser. - Appeal of revenue was dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 811
  

  Maintainability of Appeals - Held That:- Authorization to seek review given by the Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner and not the adjudicating authority (Additional Commissioner), the appeal is not maintainable under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, (Silver Streak Welding Products India P. Ltd. - Bombay High Court - [2007 -TMI - 4580 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY])

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 796
  

  Interest of bank guarantee encashed earlier - Held that:- in this case initially the bank guarantee so furnished, was not a duty deposit in advance, but a security - After the appeal against assessment was allowed by the appellate tribunal, the amount which was directed to be refunded and which was so refunded to the appellant, would attract interest under Section 11BB after a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section 1 of Section 11B of the Act - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction that on the refunded amount, the appellant will be entitled to interest @ 12% p.m., after three months from the date of receipt of the application

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 795
  

  Area bases exemption - Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10th June, 2003 - New Industrial Policy dated 7th January, 2003 - the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is, that as per the policy dated 7th January, 2003 and the notification dated 10th June, 2003, the Petitioner established a new industrial unit in the area specified in Annexure-II and was entitled for central excise exemption on the goods cleared from its unit - The notification dated 10th June, 2003 clearly indicates that a new unit would be entitled for exemption if it commences production after 7th January, 2003 established in an area specified in Annexure-II - In so far as the notification dated 19th May, 2005 is concerned, the court is of the opinion that the said notification only removes certain anomalies which had crept in the notification dated 10th June, 2003 - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

12345678........ 9