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 181 to 189 of 189 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 50
  

  Cenvat Credit - job worker the goods manufactured by it being dutiable in the hands of the ultimate manufacturer - Only because the goods are exempted, cenvat credit was disallowed – Held that:- When the goods was not exempted goods since that was dutiable the intermittent stage the appellant cannot be denied the benefit claimed – In favor of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 26
  

  Limitation - demand was confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 16/97 – Held that:- Demand is for the period from 30.9.1997 to 1.1.1998 and the show-cause notice was issued on 5.5.1998 by invoking the extended period of limitation on ground of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty - Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the contention raised by the appellant on the issue of limitation - matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 25
  

  Cenvat credit on service tax paid on 'Goods Transportation Agencies' beyond the place of removal – Held that:- In the case of ABB Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) if service tax is paid on transportation charges, it fell within the phrase "clearance of final products from the place of removal" and therefore, the assessee was entitled to CENVAT credit - in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 24
  

  CENVAT credit of service tax paid on GTA service which was used for transportation of their final product from factory to the port for export - place of removal of the goods was the port of export – Held that:- Definition of 'input service' under rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 will squarely cover the above service which was used by the respondent for transportation of the goods from the factory to the place of removal

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 23
  

  Duty on waste and scrap - SSI exemption - rebate of duty paid on inputs raw material used in the manufacture of goods under the provisions of Notification No. 41/2001 CE(NT) – Held that:- value of clearances during the years in question was below the ceiling limit prescribed in the SSI exemption Notification - benefit of Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 granting exemption from payment of duty on waste and scrap arising in the course of manufacture of exempted goods is available to them as cycle parts exported by them are not liable to duty - in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 4
  

  Demand of duty and penalty under Section 11AC of the Act - assessee is coming to the assessable value of the goods after taking fabric + job work charges – alleged that merchant manufacturers suppressed the value of grey fabric, which resulted in short payment of duty by the assessee – Held that:- No evidence on record to show that the assessee connived with the merchant manufacturers in suppression of the price of the grey fabric. The differential duty has been paid by the merchant manufacturers as they admitted in their statements that they have suppressed the value of grey fabric. In absence of any evidence that the assessee has connived with the merchant manufacturers in suppression of the price of the grey fabric allegation of suppression with intent to evade duty is not sustainable – In favor of assessee

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 3
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – demand is confirmed in view of the unamended provisions of Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 – Cenvat credit on duty paid on inputs used in or in relation the manufacturer of goods cleared on payment of duty as well as common input services – Held that:- Retrospective amended provisions of Rule 6 was not taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned order - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 2
  

  Condonation of delay in filing the appeals - Board grants permission to prefer an appeal – Held that:- Revenue has not produced any review order as required under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in respect of the present respondents in spite of opportunities granted. As there is no order produced by the Revenue, passed by the Board, therefore, we find no merits in the applications - condonation of delay applications are dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 1
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - CENVAT credit denied on MS Angles, Channels and similar items – period of limitation - show-cause notice was issued on 28.5.2009 for demanding duty for the period 2004-09 - assessee submitted that during the material period, there were decisions of this Tribunal which prompted the appellant to believe that they were entitled to avail CENVAT credit on MS Angles and similar items – Held that:- plea of bona fide belief was specifically raised in the reply to the show-cause notice but, there was no occasion for the Commissioner to consider it inasmuch as he was bent on rejecting the assessee s appeal for want of pre-deposit without looking into the merits of the case - case should be disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on merits in accordance with law and principles of natural justice - appellant should make pre-deposit of the offered amount.

  ---

1 ....678910