Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2011 2011 2011 (9) Central Excise - 2011 (9) 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 161 to 177 of 177 Records

• 2011 (9) TMI 178
  

  Demand - claimed turn over tax provisionally at the time of clearances from the factory which was in excess of what was incurred by assessee as the excess value - Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that in the case of finalization of provisional assessment, the appellant was directed to prefer a claim for refund in terms of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and when the refund claim was processed a discrepancy was noticed in the turnover tax element - Hence a show-cause notice was issued and the demand raised against the appellant - Therefore, there is no merit in the challenge by the appellants and the appellants had not given any satisfactory reason for the turn over tax claimed by them in excess - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 177
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - eligibility to avail cenvat credit on the alleged fake invoices - find that identical issues have been remanded back to the adjudicating authority following the decisions taken by this Bench in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors. (2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) - Hence, appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 165
  

  Shifting of premises - unutilized cenvat credit - conditions of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- once the condition is satisfied, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit at the transfer site. In the light of the factual findings recorded the proceedings by the Authorities that the credit has been availed of duly accounted to the satisfaction of the Authority, there is no case of double benefit as sought to be made out by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are justified in setting aside the order and restoring the benefit to the assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 163
  

  CENVAT credit wrongly taken and subsequently reversed - two appeals filed by the department and one by the assessee - show-cause notice invoked Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to penalize the party - original authority and the appellate authority were in favour of imposing penalty on the assessee albeit to different extents - show-cause notice did not purport to invoke sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 - appeals of the Revenue are liable to be dismissed - decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 148
  

  Supply from DTA unit to SEZ unit - whether supplies made to the SEZ developers for the period prior to 31/12/2008 will attract the provisions of Rule 6 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules or not or whether the appellant is liable to pay a 10% of the value of the goods supplied to SEZ developer in case no separate accounts have been maintained in respect of dutiable goods and goods supplied without payment of duty. - Held that:- The amendment to Rule 6 (6) (i) of the CCR, 2004 by the amending Notification No.50/2008-CE (NT) dated 31/12/2008 shall be applicable w.e.f 10/09/2004 when the CCR, 2004 came into existence and, therefore, exception provided under Rule 6 (6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 shall be applicable to supply of exempted goods both to SEZ units and SEZ developers/promoters.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 140
  

  CESTAT ordered to pre-deposit 60% of amount demanded - Payment of duty on non-excisable goods and availing cenvat credit - In view of decision in the matter of A-One Laminators Pvt. Ltd. (2011 -TMI - 204432 - DELHI HIGH COURT) tribunal directed to hear the matter without any condition of pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 139
  

  Removal of goods from the premises of Job worker - Permission under rule 4(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) - condition of return of waste and scrap - Held that:- In Fag Engineering case (2011 -TMI - 202740 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), it was held that no duty liability can be fastened upon the principal manufacturer in case of non-receipt of goods in terms of rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and the only consequence would be reversal of credit availed on the inputs in case goods on which credit has been taken and which has been allowed to be removed for job work is not brought back within the time period stipulated. The same legal position was held in the case of Rocket Engineering (2005 -TMI - 54305 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and (2006 -TMI - 3721 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY). In the light of these judicial pronouncements, it has to be held that the principal manufacturer who has supplied the inputs as such or partially processed, to job workers for further processing cannot be fastened with the duty liability on the waste and scrap generated at the job workers premises and said liability falls on the job workers who have actually manufactured the waste and scrap. In case, the department wanted to recover duty on the waste and scrap, then the demand should have been raised on the job workers as has been held in Alucast Foundries.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 128
  

  Penalty u/s 11AC - reducing the penalty leviable under Section 11AC - when evasion of duty by the unit had been established - Held that:- in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile (2008 -TMI - 31520 - SUPREME COURT ), the Tribunal had no discretion to reduce the penalty,

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 118
  

  Clandestine removal of goods - without seeking central excise registration - penalty u/s 11AC - Non issuance of notice (SCN) - SSI exemption - clubbing of clearance - Held that:- in so far as the issue raised in the appeal filed by KRC, that no liability could be fastened on it as a show cause notice was not issued, is an issue which will have to be found in favour of the respondent. The reason is that the provisions of Section 11A of the C.E. Act are mandatory in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in Metal Forging (2002 -TMI - 46358 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA).

  Regarding clubbing of turnover - Held that:- The Tribunal was certainly duty bound to examine the issue raised in the revenue’s appeal as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) could have clubbed the clearances of KSI, Jeet and Hi-Tech in the hands of KRC. In respect of this aspect, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand this issue to the Tribunal for appropriate orders in that regard. It is ordered accordingly.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 117
  

  Excess goods found during stock taking - confiscation under rule 25 - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that:- the weighing slips were not signed by the witnesses. - it is not surprising that the Commissioner (Appeal) directed cross examination of the witnesses. This direction was not complied with in remand proceedings. Reason for not doing so is not specified in the Appeal memorandum either. - no interfere with the order of the Commissioner (appeals) - decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 116
  

  Legality of Circular No. 929/19/2010-CX dated 29th June, 2010 - Decision of CESTAT in CCE vs. G.P.L. Polyfils Ltd (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). - Revenue did not challenge the order of CESTAT but issued a contrary circular - Held that:- Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. vs. CIT, Cochin, (2008 -TMI - 4694 - SUPREME COURT) has settled this issue - the Revenue can prefer appeals or take a contrary stand to what has been held by the tribunal even if they have not preferred an appeal, when a "just cause" is established and can be shown. Mere fact that the Revenue has not preferred an appeal or challenged the same, does not bar the Revenue from preferring an appeal or taking a different stand in another case where there is a just cause or it is in public interest to do so or when a pronouncement of the higher Court is different and/or divergent views are expressed by the Tribunals or the High Courts (other than jurisdictional High court).

  Validity of circular - Circular No. 929/19/2010-CX dated 29th June, 2010 - Classification of Polyester Staple Fibre manufactured out of PET scrap and waste bottles. - Paragraph 10 of the circular states that the decision of the Tribunal in GPL Polyfils Ltd (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI). would be relevant to the facts of that particular case and is not a binding precedent in other matters. It stipulates that even if the facts and the process are identical, other assessees cannot rely upon the decision in GPL Polyfils Ltd. before the Revenue authorities. - Held that:- Paragraph 10 of the impugned circular is struck down - The Assessing Officer and the authorities under the Act shall independently apply their mind and consider the judgment of tribunal in GPL Polyfills Ltd. (2005 -TMI - 93334 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) and keep in mind the observations and ratio of Supreme Court in C.K. Gangadharan and Anr. (2008 -TMI - 4694 - SUPREME COURT). The Assessing Officer/authorities will not be bound by the impugned circular. The circular can be referred for guidance but not as a binding mandate;

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 92
  

  Classification of battery bank - Refund of SAD u/s 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - It is the contention of the applicant that the manner of clearance of battery cells as aforesaid does not bring into existence any new manufactured product and hence it is not liable to pay any excise duty in respect of the processing undertaken by it - whether the battery bank that is supplied by the applicant has a name, character and use which is distinct from the batteries that comprise it - Held that:- the function and use of the batteries whether in single units or in a bank of multiple batteries remains the same and that is to supply power as per requirement - cycle of operation, charging and discharging, can be repeated for the life of the accumulator. This process of charging cannot be said to result in the manufacture of an accumulator

  Regarding HSN note - It is true, as contended by the DR, that it is not necessary that tariff classification must change for a process to qualify as manufacture - in the present case there is no transformation that brings about a fundamental change in the character and use of the goods. The name remains the same (i.e. accumulator, although an assembly of batteries is called a battery bank), the character and usage remain the same (i.e. provide direct current to an appliance though of differing magnitude etc.) - activities performed at the Chennai facility of the applicant in respect of imported battery cells as described in para 4 cannot be said to amount to "manufacture" under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 65
  

  Offences and penalties - whether all offences under the said Act are non-cognizable and, if so, whether such offences are bailable - Sub-section (1) of Section 9A , which has been extracted hereinbefore, states in completely unambiguous terms that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under Section 9 shall be deemed to be non -cognizable within the meaning of that Code - An offence punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards , but not more than seven years, has been shown to be cognizable and non-bailable - the definition of “non-cognizable offence” in Section 2(l) of the Code makes it clear that a non-cognizable offence is an offence for which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant

  Submissions made by Mr. Rohatgi that since offences under the Customs Act are non-cognizable, they are, therefore, bailable, was wholly incorrect, as all non-cognizable offences are not bailable - Both Section 9A of the 1944 Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provide that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under both the Acts would be non-cognizable - offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are bailable and if the person arrested offers bail, he shall be released on bail in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, if not wanted in connection with any other offence

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 33
  

  MODVAT / Cenvat Credit - Whether MODVAT, Credit of the duty paid in Tyre Protection Chain, falling under Heading 73.15 of the Central Excise Tariff, is available to the Respondents M/s.A.C.C., Ltd. under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that:- the question so raised has been squarely has been squarely answered against the Revenue in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s.A.C.C. Ltd (2008 -TMI - 48256 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 27
  

  Classification - Since the authority did not cooperate in explaining, why a certain Ahmedabad Advanced Mills were being given the benefit of the exemption, while the same was not granted to the petitioners, they had engaged in discriminatory conduct without just cause - In the instant case, there is no such discriminatory conduct which would compel the interference of the Courts. In the matter of granting or not granting of an exemption, Government has been given significant discretion by the Supreme Court unless the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution come into play - An importer cannot as a matter of right insist on exemption from levy or payment of duty as a matter of course. In fact, the Supreme Court, in M.Jhangir Bhatusha V. Union of India (1989 (5) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), has gone further and held that there can be discriminatory treatment, where such treatment is done with just reasons, in the public interest - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 12
  

  Penalty - section 11AC - The officers of the Anti-Evasion Branch recorded the statement of the driver, and thereafter, conducted a raid at the premises of the respondent. In the raid it was found that finished goods, as well as the raw-material, were short in comparison to the last recorded balances in RG-1 register - In the raid it was found that finished goods, as well as the raw-material, were short in comparison to the last recorded balances in RG-1 register - mandatory penalty can not be reduced below minimum.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 3
  

  Classification on laminated panels of particle and medium density fiber board - manufacture - sub- heading no. 4406.90 and 4407.90 or under sub-heading no. 4408.90 - Held that: - the product after lamination assumes a distinct marketability and brings about a change in the product. This change, after lamination makes the product fall outside the purview of chapter heading 44.06 and that would place the product under chapter heading 44.08 as the word used under chapter heading 44.08 is "similar laminated wood"

  Further recourse may also be taken to rule 3 (c) of the Rules for interpretation of the Act which envisages that if the products are capable of classification under two chapter headings, then as per the said rule, the classification must be under the heading which occurs last in the numerical order. Therefore, heading 4408.90 would be the appropriate sub heading for classification of the product in question.

  ---

1 ....56789