Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2015 2015 2015 (11) Central Excise - 2015 (11) 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 1 to 20 of 375 Records

• 2015 (11) TMI 1883
  

  CENVAT Credit - capital goods or inputs - H.R.Coil, plates - G.P. Sheet Plain Plates - Steel Flats - Aluminum Coils - Shape & section etc. - HELD THAT:- These goods were used in repair/fabrication of machines or as accessories which are required for the purpose of manufacture of sugar. Further the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 has specifically indicated, the machines which are used for manufacture of sugar would fall under Chapter heading 84.30. This would indicate that all the machineries that are used in the sugar factory for the manufacture of sugar would fall under heading 8438.20 and eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods. It that be so, any accessories spares or components used in the repair of manufacture or fabrication of machinery, which is further used for manufacture of sugar and molasses would be eligible for the benefit of Cenvat credit.

  In M/S. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX & THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble Madras High Court have held that M.S. Rod, Sheet, M.S. Channel/Plate/flat, etc, used for erection/fabrication of structural support for various machines like Crusher, Kiln, Hooper, etc, without which such structural, machinery could not be erected and would not function, held are eligible for Cenvat credit under Rule 2(a)(A) of CCR, 2004.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1835
  

  Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the tax appeal - HELD THAT:- Tax effect involved in Civil Appeal Nos. 364-365 of 2008 is low.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1834
  

  Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- Since the tax effect is low, these appeals cannot be entertained.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1828
  

  Rejection of declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 - seeking settlement of case - seeking declaration of tax arrears of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 2,69,944 and Penalty of ₹ 3,64,238 - whether the factual position stated by the petitioner in the declaration, which is required to be filed in the prescribed Form No. 1-B, is incorrect in any manner?

  HELD THAT:- The Department is right in pointing out that the duty/cess was already paid by the petitioner and was not due on 4-12-1998 when the declaration was filed, we fail to understand as to how that would result in causing willful loss to the public exchequer, as such. It would be a different matter, if the petitioner was to incorrectly claim that the amount was not outstanding on the day of filing declaration. Only then it would be a case of wrong or incorrect disclosure made to cause loss to public exchequer. Further, we hold that the correctness of the declaration submitted in the prescribed form for settlement of the dispute under the Scheme, cannot be judged on the basis of the stand taken by the assessee in the correspondence exchanged with the Department, prior to submission of such declaration. That approach will be counterproductive to the purpose and intent for which the Scheme has been launched - for resolution of the disputes. In other words, the declaration cannot be jettisoned at the threshold as has been done in the present case, by referring to the stand taken by petitioner in its previous correspondence exchanged with the Department. Instead, the Department ought to have treated the disclosures made in the declaration by the petitioner as relevant facts; and the correctness thereof could be judged on its own merits.

  We have no manner of doubt that in the facts of the present case, it was not open to the Department to non-suit the petitioner from participating in the said Scheme at the threshold on the ground that the factual position stated in the declaration dated 4-12-1998, submitted in the prescribed Form 1-B, Annexure P-11, was incorrect as it was not consistent with the previous communication sent by the petitioner dated 15-6-1998 - much less is of such a nature that it would cause loss to public exchequer either directly or indirectly. If the petitioner has already paid the amount towards Duty/cess, there can be no loss to the public exchequer as such. The petitioner, at best, would be entitled for adjustment as per the Scheme propounded, which is a matter to be considered by the Appropriate Authority. It is also open to the Appropriate Authority to consider as to whether the assessee, who has already paid the amount towards Duty/cess is eligible to participate in the Scheme.

  The communication dated 3-3-1998, Annexure P-12, is founded on incorrect understanding of the requirement of declaration to be filed in the prescribed format and disclosures made by the assessee in respect of the respective items to be declared therein. In the fact situation of the present case, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner had misdeclared the relevant information, as noted in the impugned communication.

  The impugned communication, Annexure P-12, is quashed and set aside. Instead, the Appropriate Authority is directed to process the proposal/declaration of the petitioner under the Scheme as per law - Petition allowed.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1786
  

  Admissibility of appeal - utilization of CENVAT credit - input services - Telephone, Courier etc. towards payment of service tax on `agency commission' falling under the category of services namely `insurance auxiliary services' - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted on the substantial question of law.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1783
  

  CENVAT Credit - input - Liquid Absorbent Polymers (CABLOC) through imported sources - it was observed that the said input is of substandard quality - HELD THAT:- On plane reading of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it reveals that in the eventuality, when the credit has been taken or utilized wrongly, the said statutory provision can be invoked for recovery of the Cenvat amount - In the present case, the issue is not in dispute that input goods covered under the Bill of Entry have not been received in the factory of the appellant. It is also not in dispute and there is no specific allegation by the Department that the goods have not been utilized for the manufacture of the final product.

  Since as a commercial practice and as per the terms of agreement entered into between the appellant and its supplier, the debit note was issued for compensating the appellant towards supply of sub-standard goods, Cenvat benefit cannot be denied to the appellant, in view of the fact no such provisions exist in the Cenvat statute for doing so.

  Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1768
  

  EXIM - 100% EOU - exemption under Notification No. 2/95-CE - Held that:- The issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Virlon Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay [2007 (4) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where the benefit of exemption was allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1761
  

  CENVAT Credit - input - Sheet Steam Jointings, machined and unmachined steel castings and Rough HRC Castings - Since these goods have been used for maintenance of capital goods installed in the factory, the same can be termed as use in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. As such, in terms of the broad definition of input, the disputed goods shall merit consideration as input for the purpose of taking Cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1754
  

  SSI exemption - clubbing of clearances - dummy units - Held that:- All the units are located at different places and the mere fact that the units are owned and controlled by one person does not allow clubbing of the clearances. Merely because the proprietor of the present concern has interest in other six units does not entitle the Department to club all the shares of the assessee in other units - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1748
  

  SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - Why the turnover will not include the turnover of six units as six different units were established for the purpose of SSI exemption and that all the six units were owned and controlled by one person, namely, Sri B.M.Garg? - Held that:- All the units are located at different places and the mere fact that the units are owned and controlled by one person does not allow clubbing of the clearances - Merely because the proprietor of the present concern has interest in other six units does not entitle the Department to club all the shares of the assessee in other units - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1747
  

  Valuation of goods - Non adherence to provisions of Central Excise Law as regards valuation of goods manufactured and cleared by them - Demand of differential duty - the decision in the case of SHRI SACHIN GANDHI, M/S MAGNA LABORATORIES GUJ PVT LTD ANDSHRI RAMACHANDRAM NAIR VERSUS CCE & ST, VAPI [2014 (2) TMI 106 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] contested.

  Issue notice - List the matter after pleadings are complete.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1742
  

  Whether non-applicability of the provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) in terms of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 will be applicable to the supplies of goods to the Developer w.e.f. 31-12-2008, or the same can date back to the event, taken place in this particular case, i.e. from January, 2008 to December, 2008?

  Held that: - the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commr. of C. Ex. & S.T., Bangalore v. Fosroc Chemicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] have held that when any rule is amended by way of substitution, the same will have retrospective effect - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1733
  

  Shortage of stock - Copper - loss of 2.5% in the process of manufacture - Held that: - Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., [1995 (4) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], held that certain quantity of raw material may be lost during the process of manufacturing of final product and exact mathematical equation between the quantity of raw material purchased and the raw material found in the finished product is not possible and should not be looked for - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1732
  

  CENVAT credit - various structural products of iron and steel - denial on the ground that respondent have not produced any documentary evidence to prove that the impugned goods have been used in the manufacture of capital goods - Held that: - the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of India CementLtd. [2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that iron and steel items of similar nature are eligible for credit - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1692
  

  CENVAT credit - inter-unit transfer of goods - transfer of final product to sister unit and credit availed by sister unit - interest - Held that: - the decision in the case of Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers CO. Ltd., [2012 (4) TMI 309 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], is applicable to the present case, where it was held that interest liability did not arise in view of no dispute regarding availment of cenvat credit by the sister unit and payment of differential duty by the assessee before issuance of the SCN - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1690
  

  Condonation of delay - Tribunal as well as Supreme Court declined to condone the delay - the decision in the case of DECCEN CO-OP TEXTILES INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA [2015 (8) TMI 1175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - delay condoned - SLP dismissed.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1689
  

  CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - rock bolt - Held that: - The term “fixtures” is finding place in the definition of capital goods for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. Since by nature of use of the disputed goods, the same is to be considered as fixtures and the same is categorized as capital goods in the definition clause, in my opinion, denial of Cenvat credit is not proper and justified - It is an admitted fact on record that the mines where the disputed goods have been used is the captive mine of the appellant, solely dedicated for the purpose of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1688
  

  Condonation of delay - decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA Versus BT. STEELS LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 173 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - There is a delay of 840 days for which no satisfactory explanation is furnished - appeal dismissed on the ground of delay.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1672
  

  Refund claim - unjust enrichment - rejection on the ground that the claimant had already charged and collected the duty amount from its customers and as such, it was not entitled to claim the said amount and accordingly the amount refundable was transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund - Held that: - there being no transfer and an admitted destruction of the goods in question the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not attracted - the appellant is entitled to refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (11) TMI 1669
  

  Request for adjournment - Clandestine removal - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the evidences in proper manner - matter remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh on the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

12345........ 19