Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2013 2013 2013 (9) Central Excise - 2013 (9) 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 241 to 247 of 247 Records

• 2013 (9) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Review of the earlier decision - whether judgment dated 8.3.2013 [2013 (3) TMI 365 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record wherein the issue was decided against the assessee - CENVAT credit - Held that:- It is apparent that on findings recorded by the Commissioner the question of levy of penalty was neither raised nor decided by CESTAT and thus it was found that no substantial question of law arises for consideration.

  The second issue regarding the denial of CENVAT Credit on the capital goods, which was fully exempt from central excise duty, was neither raised nor decided by the CESTAT. The counsel appearing for the appellants had raised the issue. The question, however, was not considered as it was neither raised nor decided by the CESTAT. In appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellant is permitted to raise only such ground, which was raised and decided by the CESTAT. Since the question was neither raised and decided by the CESTAT, it was not considered by the Court while deciding and dismissing the appeals.

  We do not find that the judgment suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The grounds quoted as above to review the judgment were argued by learned counsel for the appellant and were considered in the judgment dated 8.3.2013 [2013 (3) TMI 365 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], in which we held that the questions raised in the appeals are questions of fact and that there was no substantial question of law to be considered in the appeals. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of Delay - Held that:- In the facts of the case and the explanation offered by the petitioner that the security agency engaged by it did not make available the order-in-Original though received it on 3.5.2012 was unacceptable - The Commissioner(Appeals) was fully justified in rejecting the application to condone the delay and consequently declining to accept the appeal - Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Hongo India (P) Limited and another [2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT ] - the legislature intended the Appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay upto only thirty days after expiry of sixth days which was the preliminary limitation period for preferring an appeal - in the absence of any Clause to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause, there was complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

  The appellate authority was a creature of the Statute vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay but not beyond the period permissible under the Statue - The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted was statutorily provided - The failure to file an appeal within the time stipulated under Section 3 5 of the Act, did not entitle the petitioner to condonation of delay of the period beyond the period prescribed under the Statute - the petitioner should have filed the appeal within sixty days and in terms of the proviso extended by another thirty days - Under Section 35, the Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of thirty days - The legislature having intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning the delay only upto thirty days after expiry of sixty days period after preferring the appeal, there was complete exclusion to the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Decided in favour of Assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 22 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Cenvat credit - Revenue held that the appellant is not entitled to avail cenvat credit in respect of the short quantity of H.R. Coils - Held that:- shortage of coils was in respect of the weight of the same, which was to the tune of 0.039%. Admittedly, the manufacturer of the coils has paid the excise duty on the total weight of the coils and it is the same duty paid by the manufacturer , which stands claimed by the assessee. The marginal difference in weight of the coils, for which the appellant laid claim with the manufacturer, will not lead to denial of credit to the appellant inasmuch as the manufacturer has admittedly paid the duty on the full weight of the coils - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur Versus Ispat Industries Ltd.[2011 (2) TMI 198 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 21 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Manufacture - marble slabs and marble tiles - cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs - Held that:- activity of polishing and ultimate conversion of blocks into polished tiles amounts to manufacture - those marble tiles were seized as the same were not accounted for in the statutory record maintained by the appellant as such those were liable to be confiscated in view of Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules.

  As regards cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs, since the activity is not amounting to manufacture, the order of confiscation is not valid.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 20 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  MODVAT Credit Claim - Whether the mistake committed by the assessees in not reflecting the quantum of credit in RG-23A Part II register would disentitle them from the benefit of credit of duty paid on the inputs - Held that:- A manufacturer becomes entitled to take credit immediately on receipt of the inputs without any further formality - The amount of credit was to be simplicitor written in the records - the provisions of sub-rule (7) of Rule 57G require a manufacturer to maintain an account in form RG- 23A, Part I and Part II - entries in RG-23A Part I itself would entitle an assessee to avail the credit and the entries in RG-23A Part II is only for accountal purposes - As such, it was clear that RG-23A Part-II was only for the purpose of reflecting upon the quantum of credit taken, utilised and balance of the same - RG-23A Part II does not confer substantive right to the assessee for availment of credit.

  Bar of Limitation - when the entries stand made in RG-23A Part I within a period of six months, the availment of credit after six months period was permissible or not - Held that:- An assessee would be entitled to take the credit even after a period of six months - the time-limit of six months in availing the credit had been introduced with the sole objective of avoiding the evil of taking the credit in respect of inputs which had been cleared by the input manufacturer more than six months back - Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Versus AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. [2000 (10) TMI 93 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] - The said provision cannot be pressed into service to deny the otherwise available substantive benefit of credit, to an assessee who had received the goods within the period of six months from the date of clearance from the input manufacturer’s factory and has duly made entries in RG-23A Part-I record - ultimately the period of six months introduced in the said rule was withdrawn by the legislature with effect from 1-4-2000 - There were no merits in the Revenue’s appeal and reject the appeal.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 19 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Manufacture - Classification - tobacco products - entry No. 24039910 or 24012090 - Whether unmanufactured tobacco purchased in bulk and thereafter converted into small pouches by mixing it with a lime tube would amount to manufacture as defined under Section 2F of the Central Excise Act - Adjudicatory Authority was of the view that the tobacco pouches marketed by the assessee were covered by classification only No. 24039910 Section V Chapter 24 and the order of the adjudicating authority confirming the demand, interest and penalty on the ground that the demand raised by the department was barred by limitation was rejected - Held that:- Once it was concluded that production of retail packs pouches amounts to manufacture the pouches produced and marketed by the respondent would fall under the sub-heading 2403 of Chapter 24, which relates to other manufactured tobacco, and particularly classification entry No. 24039910 - There was no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) classifying the product in question under entry No. 24039910 - there was no merit in the appeal filed by the department.

  It was clear that repacking of raw tobacco from bulk packs to retail packs amounts to manufacture - the appellants were purchasing bulk tobacco from the market and repacking the same into small pouches along with lime tube - The process obviously amounted to deemed manufacture of retail pouches in view of chapter note 3 of Chapter 24 - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 18 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Valuation - Demand of differential duty – Whether the product development charges and the consultancy charges collected by the assesse by raising debit notes were liable to be included in the assessable value of the job-worked medicaments cleared to the latter during the period of dispute – Revenue contended that the product development charges and consultancy charges should also be included in conversion charges so as to be part of the assessable value of the goods - Held that:- Any expense which was not attributable to the job work cannot be included in the cost of conversion and hence cannot be added to the assessable value - The inclusion of product development charges in the conversion charges for the job-worked medicaments, regardless of the fact that only some of the medicaments specified in the debit note were supplied by the job worker would ipso facto indicate the fallacy of the Department’s claim that the product development charges covered by the debit note were to be treated as part of the cost of conversion – Decided against revenue.

  ---

1 ....910111213