Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2012 2012 2012 (6) Central Excise - 2012 (6) 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 101 to 120 of 177 Records

• 2012 (6) TMI 394 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Demand imposed due to denial of excess/ wrong credit of duty paid on inputs - assessee requested for allowing short credit availed by appellant which stands denied by Commissioner - appellant engaged in manufacture of computers - Held that:- Adjudicating authority has picked up those cases where the appellants have availed wrong/excess credit but he has ignored those instances where appellants have availed short credit. By verifying the entire documents for the purpose of MODVAT credit, it amounts to opening of the entire assessment, in which case, the appellants would be entitled to take short availed credit by them. As such, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh verification of the documents and allow the appellants to avail the short taken credit, if otherwise available to them.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 370 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Claim of CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid denied - service received has no nexus with the manufacture at all – Held that:- The services have been obtained for the purpose of conducting audit of the process and change of raw material suitably presented to GTZ to receive the grant so that the company can phase out the process, which cause depletion of ozone in the atmosphere - the activity undertaken by the appellant was to implement the national plan and ensure that the appellant follow the provisions of Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000 - the whole activity has a direct nexus with the manufacture and manufacturing process and is with the objective of reduction of emission of Ozone Depleting Substances – in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 369 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  CENVAT Credit of duty paid on products sold under combo scheme of goods manufactured - appellant, manufacturer of insulated wares, under sales promotion scheme introduced combo scheme of products manufactured by it including ceramic mugs purchased - Revenue denied credit on ground that ceramics mugs is not input and is not required for the manufacture - Held that:- In the definition of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944, in respect of items specified for amendment on the basis of value under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 on the basis of MRP, packing, repacking, labeling etc are specified as amounting to manufacture. Further Tribunal in case of Gupta Soaps (2007 (3) TMI 29 (Tri)) even allowed cenvat credit of duty paid on product which was not notified u/s 4A. Hence, CENVAT Credit of duty paid on ceramic mugs is allowable as input credit - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 368 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Eligibility to set off Cenvat credit admissible on one category of goods against duty imposed on another category of goods - dispute regarding classification of Note Books, Accounts Books, Laminated Kraft Paper, Ruled Paper - assessee contending classification under Chapter No.4820.00 attracting NIL rate of duty - Held that:- Commissioner after classifying the product Ruled Paper under heading 4820.00 attracting Nil rate of duty and the product Laminated Kraft Paper under heading 4811.39 has rightly held that CENVAT Credit admissible can be used for further clearances only and cannot be adjusted against the demand of duty.

  Since, penalty u/s 11AC was also imposed, hence, redemption fine is reduced from Rs.78,250/- to Rs.10,000/- in the interest of justice. On facts and circumstances of case, penalty imposed on director is set aside.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 367 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Whether Commissioner should have condoned the delay of 3 days in filing the appeal without applications for condonation of delay, having been filed by the appellant - Held that:- Matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall consider the appeals on merit in view of the fact that the delay is of 3 days only and the Commissioner should have given opportunity to the appellant before dismissing the appeal. In this case to avoid unnecessary litigation and in view of the fact that the matter was heard for quite some time on the issue of delay, the delay is being condoned and matter is being remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Penalty u/s 11AC - alleged availment of excess credit under formula specified in Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - credit availed on purchases of raw materials from a 100% EOU - SCN speaks of application of wrong formula but does not say what is the correct formula - reversal of credit under protest - Held that:- It is only known that there was availment of excess cenvat credit but we do not know whether it was because of calculation mistake or because of application of wrong formula. Since appellants paid dues under protest as soon as it was pointed and subsequently after going through the relevant provisions, revised the calculations and submitted the calculation sheet to the department would show that appellant have acted in a bonafide manner. Hence, there was no intention to evade duty or avail wrong credit and what was happened appears to be a bonafide mistake. Penalty imposed u/s 11AC is set-aside.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 341 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 21.87 lacs and penalty of equal amount u/s 11AC - dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - assessee offered to make pre-deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs - Held that:- Applicants are directed to deposit Rs 3 lacs within eight weeks and report compliance on stipulated date directly to Commissioner(Appeals). After waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount, it is held that since Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issues on merits. Therefore the case is remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue on its merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 340 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Duty liability - Sale of used capital goods - applicability of Rule 3(5) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - revenue contended duty liability together with interest and penalty on cenvat credit taken on capital goods - Held that:- Appellant has used the capital goods in its factory for a period of 2 to 4 years, before selling it to M/s. HIPL. They cannot therefore be stated to be sold “as such” capital goods. They were sold as used capital goods. Hence, Rule 3(5) has no applicability. Appellant is not liable to the payment of duty, interest or penalty.

  In view of aforesaid, the goods are not liable to be confiscated. They are, therefore, liable to be released without payment of any redemption fine and any penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 339 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty of Rs 34.80 lacs, interest and penalty of equal amount u/s 11AC - dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - assessee contended that once the duty is paid through Cenvat credit, they are not liable to pay any duty through PLA or cash - Held that:- It is found that Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issues on merits. Therefore the case is remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue on its merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 338 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Job-work - receiving machine bodies for Rubber Bonding from their principal - Revenue opinion that the values of the machine bodies to be added to the assessable value of the job-worked goods - waiver of duty, interest and penalty – Held that:- The applicants receiving the machine bodies for rubber bonding and the same after rubber bonding were cleared on payment of appropriate duty, therefore the goods cleared by the applicants are not finished and marketable goods. These are intermediate products, which are further used in the manufacture of dutiable goods by the principal - INTERNATIONAL AUTO LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BIHAR [2005 (3) TMI 132 (SC)] – complete waiver of pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 337 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  'Stock transfer' - rate of duty for the clearance of goods was increased from 4% to 8% - Waiver of pre-deposit of duty,interest and penalty - Held that:- As per Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 rate of duty of excisable goods shall be the rate or value in force when such goods are removed from a factory - as the goods were removed prior to 7.7.2009 the applicant has a strong case for waiver - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 336 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Denial of the credit in respect of CVD - credit is availed on the strength of challans and not on bills of entry - application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - Held that:- As the facts that the customs duty as well as CVD has been paid which was duly accepted by the customs authorities and thereafter goods were cleared, which were further used in the manufacture of final product and cleared on payment of duty are not in dispute,the pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty is waived - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 334 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (CENTRAL EXCISE, CUS
  

  'Manufacture' - Whether process proposed to be employed by the Applicant for refining and minting of products of precious metals namely gold, silver and platinum as per the specifications of customers amounts to manufacture or job work - Held that:- It is clear that the processes undertaken by the applicant result in the emergence of goods which have their own distinct character, identity and use. The activities of the applicant, therefore, clearly meet the definition of manufacture. However premise of applicant that if an activity is undertaken on job work basis, it would be precluded from being considered as manufacturing appears to us to be unfounded. It is not as though the two are mutually exclusive. If in a given transaction, the raw material is supplied by the customer and the applicant charges only its making charges, it could well be a case of manufacture on job work basis.

  Hence, process amounts to manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise Act, 1944 and goods in question would be liable to duties of excise at the appropriate rate(s) as specified in the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 310 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  CENVAT Credit on PVC crates used for transporting aerated water in bottles - appellants, engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverages - Revenue denied credit on ground that appellants are collecting deposits from the customers on the PVC crates - Held that:- CENVAT Credit is admissible once it satisfies the definition of input and such input is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. In the instant case the appellants had explained the use of such crates during the process of manufacture and disastrous consequence of non-use of such crates. In these circumstances the PVC crates being used as inputs/capital goods in the manufacture of aerated waters accordingly CENVAT Credit is admissible on the same - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 309 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty of equal amount u/s 11AC - dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - assessee contended that the order for predeposit of 50% of all dues was passed without granting them personal hearing - Held that:- After waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, it is held that since Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issues on merits. Therefore the case is remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue on its merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 308 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of 50% of duty and penalty of equal amount u/s 11AC - dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - assessee offered to make pre-deposit of 25% of duty - Held that:- Applicants are directed to deposit 25% of duty within eight weeks and report compliance on stipulated date directly to Commissioner(Appeals). After waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount, it is held that since Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issues on merits. Therefore the case is remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue on its merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 307 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Quantification of demand - Simultaneous claim of cenvat credit on the central excise duty on the capital goods and availed depreciation also - Held that:- As Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the order has not quantified the amount as required under Section 11A(2) and at the same time he has not remanded the matter also the submission that the appellant themselves can quantify and pay the amount since they are aware of all the facts cannot be accepted - the matter is required to be remanded to the original adjudicating authority who has to re-quantify the amount of demand as per the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 306 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Claim of Cenvat credit for GTA service availed to delivery the goods at the buyer's end - Held that:- Tax must have been paid against the invoices giving description of the goods and the destination - unless core examination as to receipt of goods at the buyer's end, actual delivery thereof and cost of freight incurred is done, no Cenvat credit is admissible - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the evidence on record and pass appropriate order.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 305 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Bifurcation of Freight paid in respect of domestic clearances and export clearances for CENVAT credit - Held that:- Outward transport service used by the manufacturers for transportation of finished goods from the place of removal upto the premises of the purchaser is covered within the definition of input service provided in Rule 2(1) of the CRR - it makes no difference for allowing Cenvat credit whether the goods are cleared for export purpose or for domestic purpose up to the place of removal - against revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (6) TMI 304 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Maintainability of appeal – limitation – whether once a copy of the order was forwarded by speed post, the requirement of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were complied and, therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is beyond time - Held that:- As per Section 37C(1)(a), it was mandatory on the part of the Revenue to serve a copy of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by registered post with acknowledgment due to the assessee. Admittedly in the present case, a copy of the order has not been sent by registered post. it could not be said that the requirement of Section 37C has been complied with. appeal filed by the assessee was time¬barred cannot be sustained. Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1 ....23456789