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 81 to 100 of 176 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 794
  

  Search - Registration after search - It was contended before the Commission that after the search, a sum of Rs. 50 lacs was deposited with the Department towards duty and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of approaching the Settlement Commission - Special Bench of the Commission had posed the question whether a consolidated return filed just before filing the application or along with the application by a person, who is not registered with Central Excise and had not obtained ECC number, could be considered as satisfying the condition of clause (a) of Section 32E(1) of the Act - Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for filing of monthly return in the form specified by every assessee about their production and removal of goods and other relevant particulars, within ten days after the close of the month to which the return relates. In the case of small scale manufacturers, the return has to be filed quarterly - filing of consolidated return would not entitle to file an application before settlement commission - Petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 775
  

  Notification No. 10/97 - Revenue argued product manufactured by the respondents are neither scientific and technical instruments, apparatus or equipment nor accessories/spare parts thereof - Appellant furnished the certificates issued by the Deputy Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy and Registrar of I.I.T, Delhi stating that the said goods are required for research purposes only - Held That:- As the certificates have been issued by appropriate authorities respondents are eligible for exemption.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 774
  

  Unjust Enrichment - Manufacturing of Drip Irrigation System' and 'Sprinkler Irrigation System (DIS/SIS) - exempted final products - Intermediate product HDPE/LDPE classified under Chapter 84 "NIL rate of Duty " - Duty paid under protest - Held That:- Report of Asst. Director (COST) not supplied is a gross violation of principle of natural justice. In view of CCE v. Flow Tech Power (2005 - TMI - 54073 - CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI), case remanded back

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 757
  

  Assessable Value - Interest on Receivables - Held That:- interest on receivables being inbuilt in price which had not been charged separately is deductible from assessable value. (Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Novapan Industries Ltd (2007 - TMI - 1073 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA))

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 756
  

  Classification - 'Bearing with Housing' and 'Plain Shaft Bearing' (BWH and PSB) -HSN Explanatory Statements - Held That:- Bearing Housings and bearing brackets falling under are excluded from the classification under Heading 84.82 and specifically mentioned in Chapter 84.83. Order in Original up-held and Revenue appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 732
  

  Clandestine removal - Search and seizure - Demand - The registration was surrendered and the firm started availing SSI exemption vide notification dated 1.3.1997 - Shri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, the Manager of the firm, gave statement giving details of the manner, in which the goods were removed in the years 1994-95 to 1997-97 - Tribunal committed serious mistake in recording the findings that since no shortage of raw material or finished goods were found in the factory premises at the time of raid, the entries in the diaries pertained to the clearance of the disputed goods by the firm - Tribunal did not doubt the statement of Shri Rakesh Kumar Pandey, the Manager of the appellant firm regarding alleged production and clearance of the goods in a clandestine manner, but did not accept the admission of the Manager on the ground that he was not allowed to be cross examined by the appellant, without caring to look into the record that he was the employee of the firm and whether any request was made to cross examine him - Tribunal concluded that Mukul N. Shah was working as Commission Agent for M/s. Shah Brock India and accepted the plea advanced by him that the entries made in the diaries related to the sale of acid slurry on commission basis, on behalf of M/s. Shah Brock India - Decided in favor of revenue

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 731
  

  Valuation - manufacturing of UPS - inclusion of cost of the battery - Held That:- In view of Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. vs. CCE (2011 - TMI - 207438 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), value of bought out items is required to be added in the assessable value.

  Period of limitation - Show cause notice issued on 16.7.99 - Duty Demanded for 20.11.96 to 16.7.97 - New unit, Duty demanded for first time - Held That:- Adjudicating authority has not given any finding on account of any mis-representation or suppression of facts, demand is hit by time limitation

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 713
  

  100% EOU - Goods Cleared to DTA - Applied to Development Commissioner for permission to DTA sales - Differential Duty Demanded - Held That:- Substantive benefit of concessional rate of duty cannot be denied to the respondent due to delay in issue of authorisation letter by the Development Commissioner - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 712
  

  Furnace oil procured and used by 100% EOU is eligible for exemption under Notification 1/95 dated 4.1.95 as a raw material/consumable - Held That:- In view of Jayant Agro vs. CCE (2003 - TMI - 52038 - CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI), decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 711
  

  Valuation under central excise - Sale to Related Person - Valuation based on CAS 4 (cost of production method) - Determination of related person - case remanded back.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 710
  

  Cenvat Credit - Appellant manufacturing "frooti" - Held That:- Cenvat credit taken on inputs validly and legally when the final product is liable to duty but subsequently became exempt, credit cannot be denied. (Tafe Limited vs CCE (2006 -TMI - 1143 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) also affirmed by Karnatka High Court).

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 691
  

  Excisability - Manufacture of "zinc ash arising out of zinc oxide" - Held That:- In view of Collector vs Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd (2004 -TMI - 46909 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and Commissioner vs Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd. (2006 -TMI - 709 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), held that process of generation of zinc ash does not involve any manufacturing process and the impugned goods cannot be held to be excisable.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 690
  

  Extended period of limitation - Appellant manufacturers of aerated water - Held That:- In view of Nizam Sugar Factory, (2006 (4) TMI 127 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), when during first SCN relevant facts were in knowledge, second and third show-cause notices the same/similar facts could not be taken as suppression. - Order set aside.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 689
  

  Recovery of amount of refund paid to appellant earlier - SCN issued for recovery of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment - whether revenue is required to file appeal against refund order or proceedings for recovery u/s 11A by issuing SCN are valid - Held That:- In case of erroneous refund of excise duty the competent authority shall issue show cause notice under Section 11 A, in which the assessee has to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount of refund, which is erroneously refunded, should not be recovered from him. In such a case, there is no question of filing any appeal, as appropriate remedy as provided under Section 11A is available.

  Credit Notes issued on 7.8.91 - Duty paid on 17.7.89 - Held That:- When at the time of clearance no such document was filed and what is sought to be relied upon is a document issued after two years, the same raises a doubt and cannot be accepted as a reliable document. - Refund denied.

  Doctrine of merger - held that:- The Tribunal was also justified to rely on the decision of the Tribunal in S. Kumar’s Ltd. v. CCE, Indore [2007 -TMI - 1284 - CESTAT,NEW DELHI] in which reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2000 -TMI - 40239 - SUPREME Court) wherein the question of merger as well as binding nature of the decision of the Supreme Court as precedence when civil appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed was considered. - Order of Tribunal upheld.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 688
  

  "Intravenous fluids" - Under the previous notification, all intravenous fluids were exempted from excise duty but by way of notification dated 1.3.2001, a condition was imposed and it specifically speaks of intravenous fluids, which is used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. - held that:- The medicaments of intravenous fluid will certainly make the use thereof for a particular disease, for eradication of which any of the said items is to be administered. The spirit of the notification appears to be that only those intravenous fluids are exempted from excise duty which are exclusively used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment and not in respect of intravenous fluids, which, besides sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment, are also being used for the purpose of medicines. The dominant purpose loses its significance once the intravenous fluids can be put to use for other purpose also.

  Additions of dicaments will make it a schedule H Drug. The medicaments of intravenous fluid will certainly make the use thereof for a particular disease and it cannot be used for the common purpose of sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment and thus defeating the intention of legislature. Exemption denied.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 668
  

  Claim of Cenvat credit after subsequent reversal of Depereciation - Held That:- documentary proof of reversal of depreciation was not produced before the authorities below. Case remanded back for fresh decision in the light of the materials to be produced by the assessee .

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 667
  

  Valuation - Good sold to "Related Person as well as Independent buyers" - In assessee own case of (2004 -TMI - 53600 - CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE) & further affirmed by supreme court - valuation is to be done by adopting the price at which the assessees sold the goods to independent (unrelated) buyers.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 666
  

  Transfer of Cenvat Credit - Amalgamation - Whether prior permission is required to transfer the credit moreover where exemption is claimed in respect of finished goods - Lapse of cenvat credit - Held That:-A bare perusal of the Notification no. 6/2006 makes it very clear that the said exemption has no reference to the value of the quantity of the goods in a financial year. It is an exemption from payment of duty in respect of the goods which are set out in the Table to the said Notification. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 11 has no application to the Exemption Notification, in the instant case, and therefore the appellate Commissioner as well as the assessing authority were totally in error in denying the benefit of transfer of unutilized Cenvat credit to the assessee. It is that error of law which is corrected by the Tribunal by placing proper interpretation on Rule 10, Rule 11 and the Exemption Notification.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 665
  

  Settlement Commission - Benefit of immunity from prosecution - Department failed to prove clandestine removal - Held That:- In view of Garware Nylon Limited (1996 -TMI - 44318 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), onus upon the department to prove about the nature of goods cleared without payment of duty. - Thus Settlement Commission should not have refused the benefit of immunity from prosecution.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 641
  

  Manufacture - products which emerge after printing on paper, polyethylene coated paper and on PVC films could be treated as arising out of manufacture or not - FACTS: Printing is of a sophisticated nature and the printed materials contain details which are required statutorily and information related to manufacture i.e brand name, logo etc. which are sought to be conveyed to the consumers. They are used for wrapping cigarette packets and they serve definite purpose different from mere wrapping. Classifiable under 4901.90 OR 4823.19 - Held That:- Activities undertaken in the present cases would amount to manufacture, we also accept the alternative submissions on behalf of the assessees that the products should be treated as products of printing industry and classifiable under Chapter 49 instead of 39. On merits demand is set aside.

  Tribunal has distinguished the decisions of Rolla Tainers Ltd. Vs. UOI (1994 -TMI - 43802 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and ITC Ltd. Vs. CCE, Madras (1997 -TMI - 44801 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) stating that, in The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not considering such a situation while determining whether the printed cartons would fall under the category of products of printing industry. In the said case, the issue was whether the printed cartons should be treated as products of printing industry or products of packaging industry. Hon'ble Supreme Court after noting that the printing industry by itself could not bring cartons into existence, held that such printed cartons could not be considered as products of printing industry. The ratio of the said decision cannot be applied to the facts of the present case which involve determination of classification of the printed products which could fall either under chapter 48 or 49 depending upon the nature and scope of printing on the products.

  ---

123456789