Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2012 2012 2012 (2) Central Excise - 2012 (2) 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 80 Records

• 2012 (2) TMI 358
  

  Whether penalty and interest u/s 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 can be levied and collected when the duty has been paid before the issue of Show Cause Notice – Held that:- In view of decision in case of Union of India Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors & Ors., (2008 - TMI - 31520 - Supreme Court), Order of Tribunal is set aside and matter is remitted back to Tribunal for its fresh consideration and decision.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 357
  

  Pre-deposit for admissibility of appeal – petitioner pleaded financial hardship – seeked part relief - Held that:- Petitioner is directed to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the sales tax said to be payable by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today for admissibility of appeal.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 356
  

  Differential duty - assessee being manufacturer of Washing Machines – demand raised by Revenue on ground of undercharging of sale price – decided in favor of assessee by first appellate authority & Tribunal – Held that:- In our considered view, the Tribunal and the First Appellate Authority have not committed any error whatsoever and findings and the conclusions reached by those Authorities cannot be characterized as perverse. Therefore, appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 328
  

  Availment of non - existent Cenvat Credit by first stage dealer on goods – purchases of iron and steel products - credit claimed on basis of invoices showing payment of duty - investigations conducted at manufacturer showed non-manufacturing & non-payment of duty by manufacturer of goods – fraudulent invoices issued - Held that:- Prima facie there are evidences appearing to show that the credit that was passed on was not against proper duty payment. The real merit in the matter can be decided only during final hearing. Thereby, appellants are directed to make pre-deposit for admission of appeal. Subject to deposit, collection of penalty is stayed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 311
  

  Credit on packing materials of capital goods – Revenue demanding reversal for same considering it to be clearance of waste & scrap of capital goods, relying on sub-rule (5A) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- Sub-rule (5A) of Rule 3 will apply to capital goods only. Packing material cannot be considered as capital goods even if it was used for packing capital goods. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority to verify whether only packing materials were cleared. If that is the case, the provisions of the said sub-rule will not apply and the appellants will not be liable for payment of any duty.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 290
  

  Rejection of appeal for not filing appropriate papers before Court - Exemption under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.02.2003 – CESTAT allowed such exemption affirmed by High Court – Revenue is in appeal - final order passed by CESTAT is not produced – Held that:- In the absence of the such orders it would not be proper for us to decide between the parties and would be handicapped while appreciating the legal issues. Hence, appeal is rejected solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 289
  

  Classification of Slagwool and Rockwool under Chapter sub-heading No.6807.10 – revenue contending it to be classified under sub- heading No.6803.00. - assessee submits that they are manufacturing `Min wool' using more than 25% of blast furnace slag by weight, right from 1993 - Held that:- Sub-heading No.6807 is specific to the goods in which more than 25% by weight, red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. The heading is based entirely on material used on composition of goods. A tariff heading, based on composition of goods, is also specific heading like a heading based on commercial nomenclature. Therefore, we are of the view that the goods in issue are appropriately classifiable under Sub-heading No.6807.10 of the tariff entry. See CCE, Raipur Vs. Punj Star Insulation Fibre Co (2004 - TMI - 48995 - CESTAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi), M/s.Rockwool (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad (2005 - TMI - 54236 - CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore)

  Further, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied and the same has been done by the adjudicating authority, which has been confirmed by the Tribunal – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 288
  

  Non-reversal of proportionate credit on input service going into the manufacture of exempted product – slag generated during the course of manufacture of MS ingots – Revenue contended procedure under Rule 6(3A) has not been followed – reversed the credit and imposed demand & penalty – Held that:- Dispute is only about compliance with some procedure. Proportionate credit on inputs and input service going into the manufacture of exempted product stands reversed and hence a demand for 10% of the value of exempted goods is prima facie not warranted. Dues are waived – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 266
  

  Availment of non- existent Cenvat Credit by Second stage dealer on goods – non-manufacturing & non-payment of duty by manufacturer of goods – assessee claimed credit on basis of invoices showing payment of duty – Held that:- Prima facie there are evidences appearing to show that the credit that was passed on was not against proper duty payment. The real merit in the matter can be decided only during final hearing. Thereby, appellants are directed to make pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 176
  

  Quantification of reversal of credit – electricity - credit reversed @ 10% of the value of the electricity - no separate records are maintained in respect of Cenvat Credit on the common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted goods - Held that:- In as much as the issue relates to the correct quantification of reversal of credit which can only be decided at the original adjudicating authority level, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner(Appeals) for quantifying the credit amount required to be reversed. See Maize Products vs CCE (2008 - TMI - 48307 - High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad)

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 163
  

  Modvat Credit of duty paid on the cleanflow, welding electrodes and various iron and steel items – Held that:- As regards Cleanflow, issue already stands decided in the appellants own case, thereby, held to be eligible Modvatable input and credit is allowed in respect of same.

  Steel items – Following the decision in case of Jaypee Bela Plant vs CCE (2011 - TMI - 210276 - CESTAT, DELHI), we remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for examining the availability of credit in respect of various steel items, depending upon actual use of the same.

  Welding electrodes – Held that:-Original adjudicating authority would also re-decide the issue of availability of credit on welding electrodes in the light of decision in case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (2010 - TMI - 77888 - Chhaitisgarh High Court).

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 162
  

  Determination of relationship - principal to principal or agent and principal - assessee engaged in the blending and packing of Glucon D' for M/s Heinz India Pvt. Ltd – excise duty paid at aggregate of cost of raw material, packing material and their job work charges – Revenue seeking to levy duty on wholesale price of the product - Tribunal quashed additional excise duty levied – Held that:- Neither Tribunal addressed the aspect that whether the relationship between the Assessee and Heinz was one of principal to principal or that of an agent and principal, nor did it consider whether the Assessee and Heinz are related persons. It based its decision solely on the observation made by the Adjudicating Authority that assessee status is of hired labour.

  Therefore, matter is remanded back to the Tribunal. If the Tribunal finds that the Assessee and Heinz are related, it shall remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh determination of the assessable value of the goods in question in accordance with law - Decided in favor of revenue for statistical purposes.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 161
  

  Acquittal of accused from the charges u/s 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - seizure of recovery (gold biscuits and Indian currency) from accused – petitioner(prosection) challenging the same – Held that:- Trial Judge observed that Prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses without any sufficient reasons. It was a very material lacuna in the case of the prosecution which cast a very strong doubt over the seizure memo/punchnama dated 01.11.1990. Benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Therefore, Trial judge has acquitted the accused not only on the ground argued but also considered the other evidence also – Decided against the petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 145
  

  Recovery of duty - Petition filed to restrain the respondents from proceeding further, pursuant to the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, against the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - Supreme Court had ordered the issuance of notices to the respondents, on 7.3.2011- Held that:- In given circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 144
  

  Whether use of brand name of a person, who is director of the respondents company amounts to use of same brand name of another person so as to disallow the benefit of SSI - Commissioner(Appeals) decided in favor of assessee based on earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of same assessee – Revenue challenged the order of Tribunal before the higher appellate forum - Held that:-The said appeal stands rejected by Supreme Court vide order dtd. 01.04.10. Hence, earlier order of the Tribunal stands confirmed and has attained finality – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 143
  

  Whether duty is leviable on clearing of samples in the laboratory situated in the factory premises – assessee contended that samples were meant for testing - Held that:- In view of decision in case of CCE Chandigarh Vs. Dabur India Ltd (2010 - TMI - 206171 - Himachal Pradesh High Court), the samples drawn for testing and not cleared from the factory are not required to discharge any duty liability – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 104
  

  Cenvat - Common Modvatable inputs used in the manufacture of exempted as well as dutiable products – manufacture of biscuit - demand confirmed @ 10% of the value of the exempted products – appellant contested for reversal of Modvat credit relatable to inputs used in the manufacture of exempted final products – Held that:- In view of decision in case of CCE vs Maize Products(2008 - TMI - 48307 - High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad), assessee can be directed even at the appeal stage to quantify the quantum of Modvat credit required to be reversed by them. Accordingly we set aside the order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to quantify the credit along with the interest required to be reversed by them – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 103
  

  Benefit of section 11AC denied – duty confirmed together with penalty & interest – Rs 8 lacs deposited against duty liability of 17.88 lacs - Held that:- In the present case, it is clear from the conduct of the assessee that he never wanted or showed any inclination to pay the duty amount or the interest and was throughout contesting the order in original on merits. In case the assessee had any grievance with regard to non-compliance of Section 11AC, the said grievance should have been raised at the earliest opportunity. The appellant should have deposited the duty amount. Therefore, we hold that no substantial question of law arises – Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 78
  

  Interest on Refund - Interest of ₹ 1.36 Crores rejected on the ground as was not admissible under Section 11BB of Excise Act - Date of refund - Held That:- In view of Ranbaxy laboratories (2011 -TMI - 206520 - Supreme Court of India), section 11BB commences from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which an order for refund is made.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 11
  

  Eligibility to avail the credit of balance 50% of the amount of duty paid on the capital goods in the subsequent financial year, without installing the same and putting it into use – reference made to larger bench – A.Y. 2003-04 – Held that:- In view of decision in case of CCE vs. Ispat Industries Ltd (2006 -TMI - 489 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) it is held that the condition imposed under the relevant Cenvat Credit Rules, for taking credit of balance of 50% of amount of duty on capital goods in subsequent financial years, in case the capital goods are lying in the factory for installation and the process of erection was being carried out has to be considered as the capital goods were in possession and use for manufacture. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1234