Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2012 2012 2012 (8) Central Excise - 2012 (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 121 to 140 of 189 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 506 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat credit on inputs received from 100% EOU - appellants availing full Cenvat credit of CVD, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess - Revenue contending inadmissibility in view of in view of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- Issue is no more res integra. Availment of credit of Education Cess over goods supplied to them by 100% EOU is correct. See Shreya Pets Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (2008 (9) TMI 351 - CESTAT, BANGLORE), Emcure Pharmaceuticals Limited vsl CCE Pune (2008 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 505 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty u/s 11AC on account of wrong availment of 100% Cenvat Credit on capital goods during the period July, 2008 - appellants reversed the entire cenvat credit availed wrongly along with interest before the issue of Show cause notice - Held that:- As in the show cause notice itself, it has been stated that the appellants have availed cenvat credit wrongly, therefore the provisions of Section 11AC are not attracted although, they have violated the provisions of Section 11AC, but not with intention to evade payment of duty. There was no intention to evade duty can also be ascertained by verification of their cenvat credit account, as the appellants are having sufficient cenvat credit balance in their account. Penalty set aside.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 503 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Consulting Engineer Service – Held that:- Dispute regarding classification falls within the phrase “rate of duty” - It is only the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Act which is competent to decide the aforesaid question of law - appeal is rejected as not maintainable

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 474 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Alleged suppression of assessable value of the goods - assessee engaged in manufacturing of M.S.pipes undertook job work of fabrication of M.S.pipes at the site provided by Essar Projects Limited - Revenue contended mis-declaration and non-disclosure on ground that goods cleared were exclusive of cost of free facilities provided by the supplier of inputs - extended period of limitation - Held that:- Tribunal observed that it could be seen from the challan/ invoice that the address given therein was c/o Essar Projects Ltd and the description of the goods was specifically stated as 'M.S. Fabricated pipes from your supplied free issue material' on job work basis. Scope of the work of the assessee as well as that of the Essar was indicated in the work order, hence the same was within knowledge of the Revenue. Therefore, SCN could not have been issued as it was time barred. Further, pipes were captively consumed by Essar. In the facts and circumstances, it is confirmed that there was no suppression with intention to evade duty - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 473 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Cenvat credit on inputs received from 100% EOU - appellants availing full Cenvat credit of CVD, Education Cess, Secondary and Higher Education Cess - Revenue contending inadmissibility in view of in view of Rule 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Held that:- It is the fact that the SCN was issued on 30.3.2010 demanding the cenvat credit for the period May, 2007 to October, 2008 i.e. beyond the period of one year. The appellants were relying on the decisions in the case of Shreya Pets Pvt.Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (2008 (9) TMI 351 - CESTAT, BANGLORE ) and others which were issued prior to the issue of SCN. Therefore, appellants were under bona fide belief that Cenvat credit is admissible on Education cess and Secondary and Higher Education cess even for the period prior to the amendment has considerable force. Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 472 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Entitlement of interest on delayed payment for sanction of refund of the rebate claim by the adjudicating authority - revenue contending that appeal regarding rebate claim is not maintainable before this Tribunal - Held that:- Since it is a case of interest on rebate claim and the same is maintainable before this Tribunal. Further, Supreme Court held in case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. UOI (2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that interest has to be paid on delayed sanction of refund claim after three months of the date of filing of the refund claim. Therefore, the issue is no more res integra. The appellants are entitled for interest on delayed sanction of rebate claim. Appeal allowed in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 471 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Penalty u/s 11AC for belated payment of excise duty during the period January, 2009 to March, 2009 - belated filing of returns during period January, 2009 to June, 2009 - assessee pleaded financial crisis - Held that:- It is no doubt that the appellant did not pay duty in time, they also did not file the return in time, but when they filed the return and thereafter they made the payment of entire amount of duty along with interest. Therefore, penalty u/s 11AC is dropped but, as the appellant has contravened the provisions of law, they are liable to pay the penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appeal is partly allowed with consequential relief.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 443 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Violation of the principles of natural justice - alleged wrong availment of cenvat credit since inputs received indicated in specified invoices were never received - assessee contending that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon the statements of four brokers who were not issued any SCN for imposition of penalty under Rule 26 nor they were made an accused in any proceedings, also no opportunity being given of cross-examination of the said brokers - Held that:- This seems an incorrect proposition of law, as when the appellant has submitted that the main supplier has factory to manufacture and clear the inputs on payment of duty and the goods have been transported through road to the factory, than the only evidence available with the department is the statements of the brokers who are third party and they need to be examined or cross-examined for testing the veracity of the statements. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh and also producing the four brokers for cross-examination.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 442 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  GTA Services - dis-allowance of cenvat credit of the service tax paid on GTA Services under reverse charge mechanism - period March 2007 and thereafter - Held that:- It is found that prior to 01.03.08 any service tax paid by the assessee under reverse charge mechanism on GTA services, was eligible for availment of cenvat credit. Reliance placed on Nahar Industrial Enterprises (2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ). However, in respect of period post 01.03.08, since definition of the output services has undergone a change, and there is no specific quantification post 01.03.08 in the material period in this appeal, matter remanded back for only limited purpose of quantifying the amount of service tax credit availed by the appellant during the period 01.03.08 to 31.03.08. The appellant is required to reverse the said amount immediately as soon as being informed to him by the authority along with interest.

  Penalty - Since the issue involved in this case is a question of interpretation, no penalties are liable to be imposed on the appellant as major portion of the demand has been set aside.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 441 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Non eligibility to avail cenvat credit of the inputs lying in stocks - non filing of intimation as to declaration filed was a final one - Held that:- As the last date for availment of such credit and filing the declaration has been extended till 30.06.03 - the appellant had filed one declaration on 07.04.03 and subsequent declaration on 29.04.03 and no further declaration filed ,thus the declaration made by the appellant on 29.04.03 should have been considered as the final declaration and the Revenue Authorities should have at least allowed credit of the stocks as declared by him on 29.04.03 - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 440 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Condonation of delay of 11 years 2 months in filing appeal - Held that:- The reason shown as pursuing the wrong remedy by filing a Review Application before the Commissioner (Appeals) in spite of being guided in the preamble to the Order-in-Appeal resulting into an inordinate delay is not a sufficient cause warranting condonation - assessee could not able to show their bonafideness nor could able to demonstrate sufficient cause for condonation of delay - against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 411 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit on input services - manufacture of both taxable and exempted products - non-maintenance of separate accounts - period involved April 2008 to December 2008 - assesee contended application of retrospective amendment in CENVAT Credit Rule (6) done by Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010 to the period involved and reversal of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of the exempted products as sufficient discharge of their liability - Held that:- Matter has to be re-examined by the adjudicating authority in the light of retrospective amendment in Rules along with the application filed by the Appellants under Section 73 of Finance Act, 2010. Appeal allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 410 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Captive Consumption - benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - denial - assessee engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron and steel billets out of the sponge iron, had taken separate registration for these commodities, though manufactured in the same factory premises but located at different parts in the said factory premises - issue decided against appellant in remand proceedings - Held that:- Even though both these units are having separate Central Excise registration, but being situated in the same factory premises, the benefit of exemption Notification No.67/95-CE cannot be denied to the sponge iron manufactured in one unit and consumed in the manufacture of billets in another unit. Consequently, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and the appeal of appellant is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 409 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Claim for remission of duty for the breakage and losses - rejection - appellants engaged in the manufacture of aerated water under chapter 22 of C.E.T.A., 1985 contended that breakage is ranging from 0.06% to 0.01% which is much less than the limit of 0.5% prescribed by the Board vide Circular No.1D/3/70-CX.8 dated 08.09.1971 - Held that:- It is found that department has not challenged the aspect that the appellants are regularly showing the quantum of loss due to breakage etc. in their periodical return filed by them. Nothing prevented the department to carry out the physical verification and it is not the case of the department that the loss due to breakage etc. was over and above the limit prescribed by the Board. We also find that this Tribunal for the earlier period has already allowed the appeal of the appellant, therefore, the decision of Commissioner is not sustainable and the same is set aside and appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 408 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  GTA Services - dis-allowance of cenvat credit of the service tax paid on GTA Services under reverse charge mechanism - period March 2007 - Held that:- Issue is no more res-integra. It is found that prior to 01.03.08 any service tax paid by the assessee under reverse charge mechanism on GTA services, was eligible for availment of cenvat credit. See Nahar Industrial Enterprises (2010 (5) TMI 608 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ) - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 379 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit on input services - invoices issued in favour of the Head Office - denial under Rule 9(1)(g) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on ground that Head Office of the assessee was not registered during relevant time as Input Service Distributor in terms of Rule 3(1) of Service Tax Rules, 2005 - Held that:- It is found that neither the adjudicating authority nor the Appellate authority have undertaken the exercise to scrutinize the invoices relating to Input services availed in order to find out as to whether or not the Input service corresponding to the invoices were availed by the appellant unit or the Head Office or any other unit. We remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 378 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Plea for condonation of delay of 29 days - delay occurred due to accident of accountant dealing with the matter who got bed-ridden for almost 3 months - Held that:- Explanation given by the appellant for delay in filing of the appeal is satisfactory and Commissioner (Appeals) should have accepted the same, more so because of the fact the medical certificate of Accountant was also produced. It is well settled that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay, the Courts/Tribunal should take liberal view and ordinarily the doors of justice should not be shut to a party on technical ground of limitation. Delay condoned - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 377 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Cenvat credit – common input used - appellants are manufacturers of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit and carbon-di-oxide - manufacture, press mud and sludge are produced which have been sold by the appellants for some value – demand of 10% or 5% as applicable during the relevant period from April 2008 to September 2010 in terms of CENVAT Credit Rule 6(3)(i) – Held that:- CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of amounts of inputs contained in any of the waste, residue or by-product. It further states that the basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products - demand of 10% / 5% on press mud and sludge, which are in the nature of by-product and waste and also non-excisable cannot be sustained - appeals are allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, for contravention of Rule 12 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 on the ground that the appellant did not file the monthly ER-1 returns – Held that:- discharge of duty liability under compounded levy scheme - Duty payment has been made under Rule 3A of the Act and not under Section 3 - Under compounded levy scheme, this is the statutory return which is required to be filed and not the return under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - appellant has complied with the said procedure - appellant has not violated the provisions of Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rule, 2002 and accordingly, the imposition of penalty on the appellant under Rule 27 for violation of Rule 12 is not correct in law - appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 348 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Interest for utilisation of cenvat credit disallowed by the lower authorities and subsequently paid by the appellant through PLA - first appellate authority while directing to take the credit of cenvat on discharging the duty liability through PLA has put an override that such credit cannot be availed till the interest is paid - Held that:- Unless the period to which the interest liability arises on the appellant is indicated, there cannot be any calculation to discharge the interest amount, which according to Revenue, the appellant has to pay. Matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority.

  ---

1 ....345678910