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 81 to 100 of 177 Records

• 2011 (9) TMI 724
  

  Supplies to SEZ from DTA - Clearance to be treated as “dutiable goods” or “exempted goods” - Held That:-the definition of the term “export” under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term “export” under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export” provisions of Rule 6 of CCR does not arise at all. - 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 710
  

  Appeal by revenue - preliminary objection clearly speaks that there was an empty formality followed by the Revenue authorities reviewing the matter leaving the annexure to others those who have no power to be a member of the Committee, but authenticated the annexure 1 &2. Such a pitiable condition of Revenue has made it non suiter due to scanty regard to law. - Fundamental element of formation of opinion of filing the appeal is missing then no appeal is deemed to be instituted in the eyes of law.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 709
  

  Interest 11AB - Where the duty short paid by an assessee is available as credit to the recipient unit of the same assessee, interest in terms of the provisions of Section 11AB is required to be confirmed, as observed by Member (Technical) or no interest would be leviable as observed by Member (Judicial) - Held That:- even where the duty is short paid by an assessee, is available as credit to the recipient unit of the same assessee, interest in terms of provisions of Section 11AB is required to be confirmed and interest is leviable.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 708
  

  Levy of penalty when duty has been paid - CBFS used as substitute for furnace oil - Held that:- Appellants did not receive inputs and secondly inputs in question claimed to have been used was not usable on the basis of technical report issued by a Government Department. Certificate issued by Friends Forgings shows that it is not used on regular basis. Plea of appellant that duty paid before issue of notice is not sustained (UOI vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills 2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). Thus penalty to be levied but reduced to 25%.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 707
  

  Delay in filing of appeal - Condonation - Delay of 126 days - Service of Order 14.10.2010 - G M left office in August - VP died on 11.12.10 - Held that:- G.M. (F&A) left office two months before service of order. Further the date on which the file was called by VP is not apparent - Even after death there was sufficient time limit available to seek appeal remedy which was nearly more than 30 days. The vigilant attitude of the appellant does not come out - If litigant is not vigilant of its right such an indulgent does not deserve any consideration for condonation of delay. The length of the delay does not appeal to allow a belated appeal to survive. Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 702
  

  Period of Limitation - Appeal filed through courier - Acknowledgment shows received by Assistant Commissioner of Excise and Custom - Appellant not made any effort to file the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within the period of limitation - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay which is beyond the period prescribed under the Act. Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 701
  

  Cum Duty Price - Appellant collected additional amount because of adoption of cum sales tax value of the petroleum products received by them to calculate sales tax amount recoverable under heading "other charge" - Held That:- Excess recovery made by the appellant is required to be added in the assessable value of the final product and duty is not required to be confirmed based upon the various decisions and reasoning given hereinabove.

  Extended period of limitation - held that:- There is no dispute that the worksheet attached to Show Cause Notice had calculated the amount of differential duty which has to be demanded from the appellant, was in respect of excess sales tax collected. The said details were worked out from the invoices which were raised by the appellant during the relevant period. On perusal of the said invoices, I find that the appellants were showing the amount which has been collected by them in form of sales tax. These will indicate that there was some kind of information given on the invoices to the authorities. - Demand beyond normal period of limitation dropped.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 700
  

  Power of Commissioner to condone delay in filing of Appeal - Technical Inspection and Certificate Services - Held That:- Delay was more than three months after the expiry of three months prescribed for filing an appeal after receipt of copy of the order. Appeal of assessee dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 686
  

  Reversal of cenvat credit - Notification No. 144/89-C.E., dated 19-5-1989 - Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Once the credit has been validly taken and utilized, the question of its recovery does not arise when at a later point in time the goods became exempted - what is relevant is at the time of taking credit and utilization of the credit, whether the assessee was entitled for the same. Once the assessee is entitled, then the question of reversal of the same at a subsequent point of time does not arise at all - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 685
  

  Refund - As no refund was granted to the appellant in terms of the aforesaid order, the appellant took suo motu credit of Rs. 2,29,646/- in their PLA account vide entry No. 1, dated 25-4-2007 and utilized the said amount for payment of duty on excisable goods manufactured and cleared by them, during the month of May, 2007 - Tribunal in the case of BDH Industries (2008 -TMI - 30889 - CESTAT MUMBAI) have held that there is no provision under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the Rules allowing suo motu taking of credit or refund without sanction by the proper officer and, therefore, the findings of the appellate authority in the impugned order upholding the recovery of the suo motu refund taken is correct in law and has to be sustained

  Regarding penalty - there was no suppression or wilful misstatement of facts on the part of the appellant to evade any duty or claim any ineligible refund. It is a fact that the appellant was eligible for refund in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 30-3-2007, which the department did not grant - There is no mala fide on the part of the appellant and, therefore, imposition of equivalent amount of penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 25 of tine Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not warranted and, accordingly, I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant by the lower appellate authority - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 684
  

  Application for stay - whether the respondent is entitled to take credit in respect of barbed wire as input - Held that: Commissioner (Appeals) held that as the respondent is manufacturing and clearing transmission line towers and the barbed wire is anti climbing device and allowed the credit - petition is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 677
  

  Manufacture - wrong availement of Cenvat credit on believe that process amounts to manufacture - As the interest credit exceeded duty liability AO demanded duty and interest on differential amount - Tribunal passed order ignoring the material on record - Held That:- Case remanded back to pass the necessary order after considering technical particulars.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 676
  

  Classification - TP 12 - Heading 11.01 or 13.01 - Held That:- CESTAT is the last fact finding authority. - While answering the aforesaid issue, the CESTAT has merely relied upon the circulars/instructions issued by the Board in F.No. 10/18/86-CXI, dated 14-8-86. - CESTAT ought to have considered whether by the process of treatment the Tamarind Kernal Powder has undergone a change when TPT-12 is manufactured and sold as a marketable commodity. However, the CESTAT has not answered this issue. In our view, this is a primary issue which should have been considered and answered by the CESTAT. - matter remanded back for fresh consideration

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 656
  

  Marketability - Processing of Wet cotton fabric - mercerizing and bleaching - Held That:- Processed goods being in wet condition was not marketable. To make the said fabric marketable further process of squeezing and stentering has to be done invariably. Thus no manufacture.

  Process with, or without, the aid of power - Held That:- When it was observed that 10H motor was lying loose could not be regarded as having been connected to the mercerizing machine, further the certificate by Gujarat electricity board revealed that load sanctioned was never exceeded by them. Thus goods were produced without usage of power.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 650
  

  Cenvat Credit - Assessee manufacturing yarn availing benefit of Notification 6/2003 - Held -BED can be used to discharge of SED and AED (T&TA).

  Demand of duty of removal of deteriorated input - held that:- the appellant had not produced any evidence as regards deteriorated condition of inputs as claimed by him. - the orders of lower authorities confirming demand of duty on the appellant for reversal of amount of CENVAT Credit taken by the appellant on the inputs removed as such, are correct and do not suffer from any infirmity.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 649
  

  Benefit of Reduced Penalty @ 25% Duty - Held - In view of CCE Ahmedabad Vs Akash Fashion Prints Pvt. Ltd (2009 - TMI - 33022 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) - if the duty liability and interest thereof is paid or is admitted by the assessee, the benefit of payment of 25% of duty liability as penalty under Section 11AC can be extended to the assessee, provided he pays the same within 30 days of the order. - case decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 648
  

  Cenvat Credit on Inputs - Served from India Scheme (SFIS) - Appellant manufacturers of transformers - Clearances made under Notification No.34/2006-CE - Exempted clearances - Pay amount equal to 10% of the value of the goods under rule 6 - Held that: - It is nobody's case that the functioning of SFIS certificate is different then the functioning of DEPB scheme. In DEPB scheme the exporters are issued DEPB which allow them specific amount to be utilized as customs duty, while the SFIS scheme, the service providers are issued SFIS certificate which allow them to import or procure indigenous goods without payment of duty by debiting the said script. - In view of Universal Power Transfomers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CCE Bangalore and Tanfac Industries Ltd. v. CCE (2009 - TMI - 33667 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), debits made in SFIS would not amount to exemption from payment of duty.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 642
  

  Penalty under Rule 25 - Returns for Feb07 Dec07 not filed - Duty paid utilizing Cenvat Credit - Held - Where duty remained outstanding beyond a period of 30 Days, it is to be paid at the time of removal without availing Cenvat Credit. The non compliance will result in penalty.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 614
  

  Manufacture - Uncharged DCP (Dry Chemical Powder) type fire extinguishers into charged/complete DCP fire extinguisher by adding DCP - Held That:- In assessee own case (2000 -TMI - 94957 - CEGAT, MUMBAI), matter settled in their favour.

  ---

• 2011 (9) TMI 613
  

  Notification 67/95 - Manufacturing Sugar & Molasses - Molasses used to produce Etyl Alcohol - Paid 8% of the value of clearance of such undenatured ethyl alcohol Rule 57CC - Held That:- Notification No. 67/95 cannot be denied as the department has not shown that the rectified spirit cleared by the appellants is a dutiable excisable goods and is either exempted or carries nil rate of duty. undenatured ethyl alcohol (rectified spirit) cleared by the appellants without payment of duty is actually alcoholic liquor for home consumption subject to it exemption will be granted.

  ---

123456789