Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2016 2016 2016 (1) Central Excise - 2016 (1) 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 277 Records

• 2016 (1) TMI 1479
  

  Clandestine removal of goods - demand of duty and penalty based on several materials duly established during the proceedings and not just on statements of the employees - HELD THAT:- Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial question of law:-

  Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was justified in law and in facts in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the confirmation of the duty and penalty could not have been based on confessional statements alone?

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1471
  

  Claim of rebate for second time - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The issue has already been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & OTHERS [2015 (10) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT] and as per the view taken, the exporters are entitled to both the rebates under Rule 18 and not one kind of rebate only.

  The order passed by the revisional authority dated 07.10.2009, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the adjudicating authority are hereby quashed - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1470
  

  Claim of rebate for second time - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The issue has already been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/S. SPENTEX INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & OTHERS [2015 (10) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT] and as per the view taken, the exporters are entitled to both the rebates under Rule 18 and not one kind of rebate only.

  The order passed by the revisional authority dated 01.09.2009, the orders passed by the appellate authority and the order passed by the adjudicating authority are hereby quashed - petition allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1426
  

  Dutiability - determination of usage of “Residual Fuel Oil” (RFO) in generation of Power - adoption of mathematical formula of 8:13 - HELD THAT:- It is considered necessary that remand of the matter is essential to do justice to both sides on the very crucial issue that has emanated from para-1 of the SCN dated 04.02.02 to determine whether LSHS is equal to RFO and if equal, whether RFO is dutiable following the twin test i.e. process whether constituting manufacture and secondly marketability prescribed by Apex Court in the case of Board of Trustee (supra). So also it is necessary to determine whether the respondent had at any time manufactured RFO and cleared the same issuing any excisable invoice for marketing.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1403
  

  CENVAT Credit - input services - pollution control - denial on account of nexus - Held that?:- The pollution being an evil that is eradiated by statutory provision and while doing so the expense incurred not being questioned and also the service tax thereon remain undisputed, disallowance of the service tax paid to grant CENVAT credit is inconceivable - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1387
  

  Availment of wrong credit - credit reversed and was not at all utilized - Held that:- The unutilized credit was reversed for which there was no prejudice caused to Revenue. Therefore, calling for interest shall serve no useful purpose of law when interest of Revenue was not prejudice - appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1380
  

  Utilization of CENVAT Credit for payment of duty - Applicability of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules - Held that:- Issue notice on the special leave petition as also on the prayer for interim relief.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1379
  

  Constitutional validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Violation of Article 14 - Held that:- There shall be interim stay of the impugned judgment and order M/S. MALLADI DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (5) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] till next date of hearing.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1378
  

  Refund claim - refund rejected on that ground alone for the reason that the basic issue whether the appellant was entitled for notification 108/95 dated 28.08.1995 was pending in the show-cause notice dated 03.11.2004 answerable to the Commissioner (Adjudication), Central excise, New Delhi - Held that:- The ld. Commissioner has not decided the refund on the merit of the case as the merit of the case was pending in the show-cause notice dated 03.11.2004 before Commissioner (Adjudication), New Delhi. Now the show-cause notice dated 03.11.2004 has been adjudicated by Commissioner (Adjudication) vide order dated 28.02.2012. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) needs to reconsider the matter of refund afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1345
  

  Provisional Assessment - Demand of interest on payment of differential duty before formal finalization of assessment - the decision in the case of CEAT Limited Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Nashik [2015 (2) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], contested, where it was held that The liability to pay interest arises on any amount payable to Central Government and consequent to order for final assessment under Rule 7 subrule (3) - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - delay condoned - SLP dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1332
  

  SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - Held that: - To club the turn-over of two units which are statutorily recognized by various Government authorities, evidences should have been put forth by the Revenue to the effect that one or other of these units is merely a dummy unit with no manufacturing facility or clearance of its own - In the present case, no such evidence has been brought on record - clubbing of turn-over is not permissible - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1318
  

  Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - clearance of goods for export - Rule 5 of the CCR 2004 - N/N. 30/2004-CE dtd 9.7.2004 - Held that: - the refund of the unutilised Cenvat Credit is not arising out of the export of the goods - refund not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1313
  

  MODVAT/CENVAT credit - final product cleared without payment of duty - explosives - appellant submits that removal of goods under Chapter X Procedure is neither exempted goods nor attracts nil rate of duty. Thus, the embargo created in Rule 57 C of the Rules will have no application and taking of Modvat credit on the inputs used for manufacture of explosives removed under Chapter X is correct - Held that: - Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 prohibits taking of cenvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of final product, which are exempted from whole of duty of excise leviable thereon or are chargeable to nil rate of duty.

  In the present case, explosives removed from the factory under chapter X Procedure is exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable in terms of N/N.191/87 dated 04.08.1987. Since the said Notification exempts explosives from payment of duty, the embargo created in Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 will be applicable in the present case, and thus, Modvat credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of the said exempted product is not available to the manufacturer.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1301
  

  Validity of order of CESTAT - Unjust enrichment - appellant placed reliance in the case of Grasim Industries Vs. CCE [2003 (6) TMI 92 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], which was overruled by the decision in the case of SRF Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2005 (5) TMI 91 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], which the appellant did not consider - Held that: - If the Appellant was duly represented before the Tribunal and no explanation has been furnished why the judgment in SRF Ltd. was not cited before the Tribunal, we are not persuaded to interfere at this stage and grant liberty to the Appellant as prayed to file a review application before the Tribunal because if the Appellant be correct, no person can be prejudiced by an act of the Court - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1297
  

  CENVAT credit - cement - structural items - Held that: - various items are fabricated at site and later on, erected and bolted to the concrete footing with the help of nuts and foundation bolts - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Rajasthan Spinning Mills [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], while allowing the credit on M.S. items like angles, sheets, etc. evolved user test to determine whether these items can be considered as components or accessories of capital goods on applying this principle - there is no error in the findings by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in as far as eligibility of credit on steel structural items.

  CENVAT credit - cement - Held that: - the cement used for constructing under-ground storage tank, which is a civil structure, will not be eligible for CENVAT credit.

  Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1296
  

  Valuation - whether the assessee being a manufacturer of flashlight torches, is chargeable to duty under Section 4A in respect of institutional/industrial sales made by them instead of Section 4 as claimed by the assessee? - Held that: - the issue is no more res-integra and the same have been decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal following the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayant Food Processing (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE., Rajasthan [2007 (8) TMI 3 - Supreme Court ], where it was held that As SWM Act and Rules do not require fixing MRP on such dry cell batteries, the question of assessing the said goods in terms of provisions of Section 4A is ruled out - the sale/clearance made to institutional buyers shall be taxable under Section 4 and not under Section 4A of the Act - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1294
  

  Levy of service tax - commission earned by the appellant acting as foreman conducting the chit funds - Held that: - writ Petitions stand disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application for modification of the impugned orders vide Annexures “A” and “B” within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order - petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1285
  

  CENVAT credit - S angles, channels, beams, HR plates, coils, steel tubes etc - denial on the ground that these were used for supporting structure, platforms for the equipments and interconnecting pipelines to the equipment like evaporators, sugar melting system etc. - Held that: - In the case of India Cements Ltd.[2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], it has been categorically held that credit is admissible on MS items used for supporting structures - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1278
  

  CENVAT Credit of CVD - credit availed on the basis of photocopy of courier bill of entry - whether courier bill of entry is a valid document for clearance of any imported goods u/r 9 of CCR, 2004? - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of CONTROLS & DRIVES COIMBATORE (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., [2007 (11) TMI 57 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that photocopy of B/E cannot be said invalid documents to avail credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2016 (1) TMI 1261
  

  Whether the goods can be confiscated and penalty can be imposed under Rule 25 ibid from a person who is not categorized u/r 25 of the Rules for accomplishing the purpose?

  Whether penalty can be imposed u/r 26, when the confiscation is not proper and justified?

  Held that: - On perusal of Rule 25 ibid, it reveals that the provisions contained therein can be invoked against the persons namely, producer, manufacturer, registered person of warehouse, registered dealer - the appellant No.2 is not confirming to any of the category of persons mentioned in the said rule. Thus, the provisions of Rule 25 cannot be invoked against appellant No.2 for confiscation of goods.

  Rule 26 of the said rules also cannot be invoked for imposition of penalty in view of the fact that the goods were not liable for confiscation u/r 25 of the said rules.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

12345........ 14