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 141 to 160 of 189 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 347 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Cenvat credit on various input services - appellant engaged in ship manufacturing activity and providing services for ship repairs and refitting - denial of credit on ground of non-production of original bills/invoices and that ship breaking is exempt from payment of duty - Held that:- Observation that ship breaking for which the appellants are exempted from payment of duty seems to be erroneous finding as Central Excise Tariff clearly indicates that new ships are liable to duty and the Service Tax credit that has been denied to the appellant, seems to be on wrong footing. In our view, the entire issue needs to be considered by the adjudicating authority in the light of the fact that the appellant is able to produce invoices and Central Excise Tariff indicates that the finished goods manufactured by the appellant are liable to duty. Matter remitted back.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 346 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Classification of shikakai powder - Revenue contending classification under Chapter 33 of the CETA particularly under sub-heading 3305.90. whereas assessee not discharging duty on the premise that it is a vegetable product and more over classifiable under Chapter 14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975 - period 1.4.1993 to 31.3.1998 - invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- As the issue involved is more than of classification of shikakai powder, which was held against the appellants in 2009 in case of Mayil Mark Nilayam Vs. CCE, Chennai (2009 (3) TMI 170 - CESTAT, CHENNAI), therefore, demand for the extended period of limitation is not sustainable but demand for the normal period of limitation is sustainable. As the issue is of classification, no penalty is warranted in this case. Hence the penalties are set aside. As the appellants have not collected duty separately, therefore the amount of clearance be treated as cum-duty price, so duty liability is to be reduced to that extent - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 345 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Discharge of Education Cess wherein Education Cess is to be calculated as a percentage of excise duty levied and collected - assessee contending that once duty liability is exempt, cess has to be nil - Held that:- It was held in case of Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Ltd (2007 (7) TMI 150 - HIGH COURT, HIMACHAL PRADESH ) that Education Cess which is levied as a percentage of excise duty can be calculated irrespective of the fact whether the excise duty payable on such goods exempted. Hence, excise duty can always be calculated even if it is not collected and on this notional calculation, the education cess can be calculated. This cess has to be collected in terms of the Finance Act - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 321 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Demand imposed on ground that assessee has not reversed proportionate cenvat credit attributable to exempted goods cleared whereas assessee contended reversal of proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the exempted goods cleared - period involved 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2005 - Notification No.6/2002-C.E. - Held that:- In view of the retrospective amendments in the provisions of Rule 6, amount already reversed by the appellant as proportionate input cenvat credit attributable to the exempted goods cleared from the factory premises, should be enough compliance of the law. Order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 320 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - refund claim under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - accumulated Cenvat Credit of duty paid on input used in or in relation to the manufacture of exported goods on the ground that the applicants were unable to utilize the same – Held that:- During the period 2004, 2005 and 2006, the applicant does not even mentioned the said amount of Cenvat credit as receivable in the books of accounts and all of a sudden took a credit for the past three years and claiming the same as accumulated unutilized on account of export of goods - service tax for three years were taken by making one entry that after a lapse of time - applicant failed to make out a case for total waiver of duty - applicants are directed to deposit 50% of the amount of demand

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 319 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Input credit of excise duty on M.S, Angles and M.S. Channel, beams, plates etc. – denial on the ground that such items are not used in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots - Show Cause Notice for disallowing the credit taken in the year 2004 was issued on 8th August, 2008 - demand is time-barred

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 318 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit on house keeping, rent-a-cab and courier services – Held that:- there was nexus between input services and final products - no reason to deny the credit of service tax paid on the three input services

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 317 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Denial of Cenvat credit - job-worked goods were cleared without payment of duty, to the principal manufacturer, who processed the goods further and cleared the final product on payment of duty – Held that:- Cenvat credit of duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product cleared without payment of duty for further utilization in the manufacture of final product, which were cleared on payment of duty by the principal manufacturer, would not be hit by provisions of Rule 57C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - order to the extent it denied the CENVAT credit in question to the assessee is not sustainable - appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 292 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Dismissal of appeal on account of non-deposit of - Held that:- As during the period in question, the petitioner sold scrap involving duty to M/s VAL - the appeal filed by the petitioner cannot be dismissed for want of pre-deposit by M/s VAL Ltd - as once the Tribunal had waived the condition of pre-deposit of penalty in the case of the petitioner the Tribunal was not justified in passing order on miscellaneous application directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount imposed on them by reviewing its earlier order.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 291 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Challenge of remand of the matters by the first appellate authority - Held that:- As decided in MIL INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NOIDA [2007 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the first appellate authority should have decided the issue as per the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944 by looking into the documentary evidences available to him and does not have the powers to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority - the impugned remand order is unsustainable.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 290 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Challenge the jurisdiction of the appellate authority - Order passed u/s 3A - AO contested against the belated challenge - Held that:- That it is permissible for the petitioners to challenge the validity of the impugned orders on the ground of lack of jurisdiction even at stage, though the same had not been raised before the adjudicating authority - after the omission of rules 96ZQ, 96ZP and 96ZO of the Rules with effect from 1st March, 2001 no proceedings could have been initiated there under and after the omission of section 3A of the Act with effect from 11th May, 2001, without any saving clause, no pending proceeding under the said rules which had not been concluded before the omission came into effect, could be concluded thereafter - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 289 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Valuation of the goods manufactured on job work basis - Non production of CAS-4 certificate - Stay for waiver of duty - Held that:- As the assessee submits that they will be able to produce the CAS-4 certificate before the adjudicating authority it is deem fit to remand the matter to adjudicating authority to examine the issue afresh.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 249 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Duty demand on allegation of clandestine removal - Held that:- As the duty liability has been discharged after the issuance of show cause notice the benefits which are available to an assessee prior to issuance of show cause notice should also be extended after the issuance of show cause notice, if liability is discharged before the adjudication order.

  No merits in the grounds raised by the Revenue that assessee may seek refund of the amount as that the entire order in original is set-aside as the first appellate authority has considered the extension of benefits of Section 11A to the assessee only on the ground that he has paid the amount in full.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 248 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Reversal of cenvat credit during the period when assessee were DTA - two units - Merger with EOU unit - Held that:- It is the claim for reversal of credit and the transferability thereof, particularly after the merger of two Units no dispute to the issue that the credit if it is allowed to DTA unit will be the very same unit i.e. Kiri Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. The identity of the assessee did not change and is merely the clubbing the unit No.1 & 2 together and the assessee remains the same and function from the same premises as a unit - the provisions of Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 247 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Rejecting of application for registration of Central Excise for warehousing - premises is already having Central Excise Registration certificate and Warehouse License in the name of other EOU who has defaulted - Held that:- A perusal of Section 6 & rules also states that it is the person who has to get registered. The notification in Clause (2) only sets out that if such registered person has more than one premises, then each of such separate premises would require registration certificate for each of such premises.

  It is open to a person who has ceased to carry on the business to apply for deregistration. Would that mean in the absence of the person who has closed or sold the business or premises, applying for deregistration, there is no jurisdiction to grant another person registration of the premises as in the case of a bona fide transferee for value or for that to the owner of the premises whose lessee has defaulted in payment of excise dues - Neither Section 6 nor Rule 9 and the Notification is a provision for enforcing the claim for dues of the department - An immovable property by itself cannot be sold unless the owner of the premises is defaulter and that too under a certificate as arrears of land revenue. That sale would be subject to the priority of claims - The Respondent No. 3 has therefore, clearly acted without jurisdiction in refusing to grant registration on the specious plea that EOU whose assets has been sold and purchased by the Petitioners has not applied for reregistration - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
  

  Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - short payment of Cenvat & Education Cess - there is an error of computation of cess - Respondent submitted that there was no mistake on the part of the Respondent for the said error – Held that:- Cess is required to be re-considered and re-computed. Therefore, the case is remanded to the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) for the limited purposes for computation of quantum of Cess.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 212 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Claim of refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 against exportation of 100% Cotton Terry Towels under bond. - Revenue was of the view that since final product was exempted from excise duty they could not have exported the goods under bond and they could not have taken Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of such exempted goods. - held that:- this issue has been initially decided by the Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India (2007 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and decision has been further affirmed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Drish Shoes Ltd. (2010 (5) TMI 334 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) - Refund allowed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 211 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Common modvatable / cenvatable inputs in the manufacture of dutiable as also exempted final products. - demand provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules - held that:- matter remanded back.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 210 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Excisability of sugar syrup, being manufactured by the appellant at the intermediate stage of manufacture of edible biscuits and used by them captively - appellants contention that sugar syrup manufactured by them is not marketed on account of various factors like short shelf life etc. and hence the same is not excisable – Held that:- Matters were remanded for denovo decision with the direction to establish the marketability of the product and to decide the consequent excisability.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 209 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  CENVAT credit on stockbroker's service - respondent used the services of a stockbroker for acquiring shares in another company - understanding was that the other company would supply electricity to the respondent subject to the condition that the latter would invest in the former – Held that:- Electricity was used by the respondent in the manufacture of their final products – there is clear nexus between the stockbroker's service and the manufacture of the goods - service clearly fell within the ambit of 'input service' as defined under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – credit allowed

  ---

1 ....45678910