Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2013 2013 2013 (12) Central Excise - 2013 (12) 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 388 Records

• 2013 (12) TMI 1235 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Entitlement for Exemption Notification No.6/2006 – Compliance of procedure under Rule 6(3) (b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 – ‘Gear box assembly' and 'Gear motor assembly' manufactured –Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Rule 6(3)(b) Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (as it stood upto 31.03.2008), "if the exempted goods are other than those described in condition (a), the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price, excluding sales tax and other taxes, if any, paid on such goods, of the exempted final product charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory" - by Notification No.10/2008-CE(NT), dated 01.03.2008 (effective from 01.04.2008), the manufacturer has an option to pay 10% of the value of the exempted goods or pay the amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to inputs/input services based on a formula under clause (b) of sub-rule 3(A) of Rule 6 of the said Rules - Rule 6 was amended retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2010 - the applicant had already reversed the credit of Rs.97,85,380 - the applicant is directed to deposit a further amount of Rupees Twenty Lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1234 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Process manufacture or not – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The applicant had availed credit and paid the duty which is more than the credit now denied in Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - once the duty on final products has been accepted by the department, Cenvat credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture - Prima facie the applicant has made out a strong case in their favour - The pre-deposit of dues waived till the disposal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Clandestine removal of final product from two different units – Joint liability - Held that:- Individual duty liability is to be segregated separately against each different individual and common order in respect of different assessees confirming joint demands cannot be upheld – Following Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd. v. CCE, Trichy [2007 (3) TMI 133 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - duty should not be demanded from two different person in respect of same goods – demand directed against two persons without arriving at specific charges on whom determination is to be effected and liability should rest, cannot be upheld.

  The matter do not relate to the lifting of veil about which there could be no doubt - it is a case of clandestine removal against two different manufacturing units - M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. was manufacturing ingots/billets which according to the Revenue was being clandestinely transferred to Juhi Alloys Ltd. who were manufacturing flats clandestinely and further clearing clandestinely to various flat and rod manufacturers - Based upon the evidence, it is for the Revenue to confirm the demands in respect of billets against M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. and in respect of flats against Juhi Alloys Ltd. - a joint demand and joint penalty cannot be confirmed against the appellants against two persons – order set aside and the matter remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision for fixing the liability of each and every individual separately – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1232 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- amount involved in this appeal is ₹ 3,92,334/- which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 5 lakhs prescribed by the Board for filing appeal to the Tribunal under instruction F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC, dated 17-8-2011 applicable with effect from 1-9-2011 - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1231 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation of goods - Whether cost of packing material which is supplied free of cost to be included in the assessable value of the goods - Held that:- as the respondents are availing the benefit of credit of duty paid on the packing material, the cost of packing material is to be included in the assessable value. Hence, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the cost of packing material is to be included in the assessable value of the goods manufactured by the respondents - Decided partly in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1230 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Demand of duty - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the benefit of cum-duty price in respect of duty paid on the scrap - Held that:- demand is made from the present respondent in respect of the scrap cleared by the job worker. Therefore, cum-duty benefit is available while computing the duty liability as per the provisions of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1191 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Cenvat credit on scrap of inputs and capital goods – Applicability of Rule 5(A) w.e.f. 16.05.2005 under Notification No.27/05 - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Assessee contended that there was no necessity for reversal of the CENVAT Credit availed on scrap as no such provision was in existence at that time - Held that:-Prima facie there was force in the contention that payment of duty or reversal on scrap of capital goods became liable to duty w.e.f. 16.05.2005 and no such provision was there between January, 2004 to 15.6.2005 - CENVAT Credit involved after 16.05.2005 on scrap of capital goods is around Rs.38 Lakhs – Assessee directed to deposit 25% of the amount of CENVAT Credit as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1190 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  

  Cenvat credit availed on depreciated value of the capital goods installed in factory - Waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima facie an assessee is entitled to avail CENVAT Credit on capital goods if no depreciation has been claimed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - the applicant has availed depreciation for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06 and claimed CENVAT Credit on the reduced value of capital goods from 01.06.2007 after mining services became taxable service - Assessee contended that they themselves had calculated the amount of duty involved in the respective invoices of the capital goods and deducted the amount of duty representing the value on which depreciation has been claimed during 2004-05, 2005-06 and availed CENVAT Credit on the balance amount - There was no such a mechanism is available under the CENVAT Credit Rules - the applicant directed to deposit Rupees Two Crores Twenty Five Lakhs as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1189 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Restoration of Appeal - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Official Liquidator contended that there is not enough assets of the company to meet the full liabilities of the company, thus payment of amount due to one party even before disposal of appeal will be prejudicial to the interests of other creditors – Held that:- Considering the winding up process which is under way and the fact that the amount involved is interest on duty which is already paid - lenient view to be taken in the matter and waive pre-deposit of the dues – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Application for Restoration of Appeal allowed and Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1188 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Entitlement to refund under Notification No. 6/2002 - Duty paid at the time of clearance – Held that:- Following Tata Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow [2011 (5) TMI 233 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - if registration of the vehicle is made as taxi within the extended period of three months, the refund granted by the notification is to be disallowed – order set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1187 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Refund of un-utilised cenvat credit under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 – Held that:- Following Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III Vs. Motherson Sumi Electric Wires [2009 (5) TMI 498 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - inputs used in goods which were exported under bond/letter of undertaking and the refund of credit having been accumulated from time to time, which the assessee was not able to utilize, is required to be refunded in terms of the Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules.

  In Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Surya International [2010 (6) TMI 702 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - an assessee cannot be compelled to make exports under rebates and the exports under bond are entitled to refund of input or input service credit - Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is a beneficiary piece of legislation and central excise officers has no jurisdiction to curtail it and find reason for non-adjustment or non-utilisation and the refund of un-utilised credit being a substantive right, has to be allowed – Decided in faovur of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1186 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Valuation of goods - Payment of duty for the clearances made to their depot in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules 2000 r.w. Rule 7 read with Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act – Held that:- The assessee seems to believe that the goods which were cleared from the factory gate to the depot on a certain date at a certain price should necessarily be sold from the depot at the same price as far as possible on the same date and the amount of duty paid at factory gate should be recovered from the ultimate buyer so as to justify the determination of assessable value of the goods cleared from factory in terms of Rule 7 - The compilation of invoices (both factory gate and depot) produced is part of the assessee’s endeavour to make out this sort of a case – matter remanded to the original authority to take fresh view on the valuation issue after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of adducing evidence – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1185 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Availment of Cenvat Credit - Credit in respect of truck - Held that:- There is no justification placed to show that manufacturer was dependent on truck and use of truck was integral to the manufacture and also relevant - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1184 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Demand of duty - Duty not paid on the entire quantity of scrap - Demand raised on basis of calculation of what quantity of scrap would have been produced adopting some notional standards - Held that:- lower appellate authority has considered all aspects of the case and has passed a detailed speaking order under which he has dropped the duty demand but has imposed penalties on the job workers while cautioning them to be more careful in future and directing them to maintain proper accounts showing details of scrap generated and cleared on payment of duty - the lower appellate authority has passed a proper and legal order as warranted by the circumstances of the case and the same calls for no interference - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - Clearance of goods to SEZ developers - Held that:- assessee has made out a strong prima facie case that supplies made to SEZ developer should also be considered as export in view of the definition of export in Section 2(m)(ii) of Special Economic Zone Act, 2005. Further, Section 51 of the Act provides that the provisions of SEZ Act will have overriding effect if it conflicts with provisions in any other law. Once goods are considered to be exported, there is exemption from provisions of 6(6) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. We also take note of the subsequent amendment made in Rule 6(6)(i) of Cenvat Credit Rules with effect from 31-12-2008. We, therefore, grant the prayer for wavier of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the amount in dispute during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1182 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Stay of recovery - Denial of Cenvat credit - Held that:- Debit notes disclose all the essential particulars required of a statutory invoice. Prima facie, one should not look at the title of the document but should rather see the contents thereof to determine its status - Following decision of CCE, Salem v. Pallipalayam Spinners (P) Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 951 - CESTAT CHENNAI] - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1144 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty under Rule 26 - Documents issued for availment of cenvat credit without payment of the inputs – Held that:- The issue needs deeper consideration from the Bench as it is on record that appellant has issued invoices and there was no movement of goods - The first appellate authority has already considered all the arguments and reduced the penalties - penalty under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which is pari-materia to Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, cannot be invoked for imposing of penalty on the Company – all these aspects can be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal – Assessee directed to submit Rupees fifty thousand as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1143 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Chhakdo Rikshaws received and cleared without any invoice - Waiver of Pre-deposit of Penalty 26 of Central excise Act,2002 – Held that:- The issue involved needs to be appreciated on the evidence on record and also on the factual position as to the role played by the appellant in receipt and disposing of 54 Chhakdo Rikshaws, which were received by him without any duty paying document - the appellant has not made out a case for complete waiver of the amount of penalty - appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rupees ten thousand as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1142 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Utilization of Cenvat credit in Basic excise duty - Education Cess and Secondary and Higher Education Cess discharged by debiting in RG 23A Part-II – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:-Following COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Versus MALWA INDUSTRIES LTD. [2009 (4) TMI 381 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] – Unconditional stay granted for the amount due - The appellant has made out a case for the waiver of amount - Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – stay granted.

  ---

• 2013 (12) TMI 1141 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Dutiability of the capital goods – Capital goods cleared after their worn out as waste and scrap – Waiver of Pre-deposit - – Held that:- The invoices raised are for the goods as waste and scrap - both the lower authorities have not considered and recorded any finding as regards waste and scrap is generated either by mechanical working on the capital goods or otherwise – following UNION OF INDIA Versus HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. [2007 (3) TMI 198 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN] – the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the amount – pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 20