Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2018 2018 2018 (3) Central Excise - 2018 (3) 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 121 to 140 of 470 Records

• 2018 (3) TMI 1228 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Valuation - manufacture of furniture with ‘Nilkamal’ brand name - Revenue held that the value of branded furniture by the appellant supplied to M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. should be in terms of Rule 10A of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - Held that: - identical issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Nilkamal Ltd. and others vs. CCE & ST, Raipur [2018 (2) TMI 1305 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] wherein it was observed that the appellant is the manufacturer and not the job worker. So, Rule 10A of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 is not applicable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1227 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Levy of tax - waste packing material (floor sweeping) - Held that: - issue has came up before the Tribunal in the case of Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE [2014 (5) TMI 494 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that it cannot be said the appellants are manufacturing the said floor sweepings and appellants are not required to pay duty on these floor sweeping being waste - The floor sweeping is incidental and appellant never manufacture it. So there is no question of levy of tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1226 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Demand of duty - fire in the factory - the department has confirmed the duty on presuming that goods were received by Kahrani unit against the advance license issued in the name of Ghatal unit - Held that: - The fire is not in dispute. The appellant at Kahrani unit received the goods from M/s. Reliance which were used in the manufacture of export goods. Originally, license was issued to present appellant for Ghatal unit and manufacturing activity was done. It is only after fire when the appellant has started production in Kahrani unit in the same area. The license was revalidated in the name of new unit as the DGFT has issued the revalidation letter in favour of new unit. In the new unit transaction entry in the statutory record of export is not denied as per the audit report. When it is so, then we do not find any reason to sustain the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1225 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - includibility - sales tax on SED - case of the department is that the element of sales tax which was not payable on SED were charged extra, the same is extra consideration, hence it is includible in the assessable value - Held that: - it is obligation on the appellant to explain that refund appearing in the sales tax return does not pertain to the excess Sales Tax/VAT paid in case of sale of vehicle which was registered as taxi. For this reason the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1224 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - input services - maintenance of garden at the training centre/guest house - renovation of residential accommodation of executives at Kurgaon - Held that: - demand pertains to 2008-09 to 2010-11 during which period the definition of ‘input service’ in rule 2(l) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004 encompassed all activities relating to business qualified by a representative sample of typical services that could be treated as eligible service. That, undoubtedly, does cover maintenance activities at the training centre/guest-house and of the residential accommodation of the executives of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1223 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Rebate claim - Appropriation against rebate - Held that: - the duty liability arising have been discharged in full by the appellant; there is no scope for recovery of any amount by appropriation of the amounts sanctioned as rebate - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1222 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Penalty - credit reversed on being pointed out - Held that: - the appellant had reversed the CENVAT credit well in advance of the issue of notice leading to the impugned proceedings. Furthermore, it is seen that there is no evidence of any suppression or mis-representation that would justify imposition of penalty on the appellants - penalty set aside.

  CENVAT credit - diagnostic facility - Held that: - The appellant is unable to establish the justification for contending that the diagnostic facility used by the employees was in connection with or essential to the manufacturing process. In view of this lack of justification, denial of CENVAT credit is upheld.

  Appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1221 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  CENVAT credit - manufacture of ‘apparatus’ - inputs - denial on the ground that the impugned goods, not being ‘apparatus’, were not liable to duty, that the parts and accessories classifiable under 9022 9090 and, consequently, ineligible for CENVAT credit - Held that: - Without such a re-classification for assessment, dutiability, or otherwise, of the manufactured goods cannot be re-determined and to the extent that duty liability has been discharged in accord with interpretation, learning or wisdom of the appellant, there is no scope for denying the CENVAT credit on the inputs that find use in manufacture - with the discharge of duty liability on goods for which the inputs were put to use, CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 does not provide for denial of CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1187 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - a part of the amount showing in the invoice has been retained by the appellant in terms of contract towards performance guarantee - Rule 4 (7) of CCR 2004 - Held that: - no reversal of credit under Rule 14 can be ordered in such situation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1186 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Liability of duty - Henna Powder - Held that: - the Ministry of Finance issue N/N. 11/2017-CE(NT) dated 24.04.2017 under Section 11C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 exempting Henna Powder and Paste falling under Chapter 33 for the period 01.01.2007 to 01.03.2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1125 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  

  Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - the case of the Revenue is that the appellant is clearing stearic acid in the guise of HRBP flakes and not paying duty - Held that: - When the fact of manufacturing and clearance of HRBO was in the knowledge of the department during the relevant time, therefore, no allegation of suppression cannot be alleged against the appellant and the extended period of limitation is not invokable.

  As the test report of CRCL states that the samples are having characteristics of Hydrogenated material and the stearic acid can be obtained by splitting but not by Hydrogenation, the samples drawn cannot be said of stearic acid. On the basis of the test report and opinion, it cannot be concluded that the samples were drawn are of stearic acid. As these reports are not conclusive, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants.

  As the Revenue has not shown any positive evidence to corroborate the statements of the buyers/suppliers to show that the appellants were clearing stearic acid in the guise of HRBO flakes. In that circumstance, the allegations made against the appellants are not sustainable.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1124 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - CVD paid by the appellant on imported coal - sole reason to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant is that the authorities below has taken into consideration N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012 - Held that: - the authorities below have not considering the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.3.2012. If same is taken into consideration and duty paid under the said notification, there is no bar for availment of Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 3(7) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - authorities below has applied wrong provision to deny Cenvat credit to the appellant. Therefore, Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant.

  Extended period of limitation - Held that: - As the Revenue itself has applied wrong provisions of law, therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable.

  Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1123 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  CENVAT credit - proportionate credit on account of appellant is engaged in trading activity - Held that: - the appellant is nowhere engaged in the activity of trading. In fact the appellant is only a service provider as it has been held that appellant is a service provider. In that circumstances, when it has been held that appellant is not engaged any trading activity, the SCN was not required to be issued to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1122 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Valuation - stock transfer - As per the Revenue the goods were being cleared on value lower than that at which they were being sold by the C& F Agents - time limitation - Held that: - as regards limitation, there is a clear finding by the Tribunal that there was no malafide or suppression on the part of the assessee. Inasmuch as the limitation aspect already stand decided by the Tribunal, which order of the Tribunal was accepted by the department and no appeal was filed their against, Revenue cannot held to be aggrieved with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) granting limitation benefit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1121 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Clandestine removal - X-Ray machines - case of appellant is that the matter should be remanded for reconsideration of overall matter as there are serious inconsistencies in the facts and the findings given by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order - Held that: - there are indeed inconsistency between the finding given by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order and the facts narrated by the appellant, which is arising from the records seized by the investigation at the time of investigation - matter needs remand for reconsideration of various aspects such as quantity of clearance of X-Ray machines, valuation, eligibility of SSI exemption etc. - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1120 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund of excess duty paid - unjust enrichment - Held that: - though the appellant had filed refund claim but the same was withdrawn and subsequently no further refund claim was filed. In this position when no refund claim is pending with the department the question of sanctioning refund claim does not arise - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1119 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Held that: - inasmuch as the dispute relates to the factual position, which can only be verified at the level of the original adjudicating authority, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority, who would verify the fact of payment of duty under protest by M/s Godrej & Boyce or alternatively the assessment being provisional - appeal allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1118 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Penalty - Valuation - amortized cost of the Dies/Moulds being provided by the customer for whom the appellant is doing the job-work - Held that: - as regards the absence of any mala fide has been arrived at by him, in which case, we agree with the learned Counsel that no penalty is required to be imposed - penalty of ₹ 5000/- imposed by the original adjudicating authority was not challenged by the appellant, and as such the said penalty would remain - appeal allowed in part.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1117 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Principles of natural justice - Remission of duty - Held that: - The issue raised being one of denial of principles of natural justice it would be appropriate for the matter to be considered afresh by the original authority after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard - appeal allwoed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2018 (3) TMI 1116 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  

  Benefit of cum-duty price - Held that: - though the modification application was rejected, but the appellants were directed to raise the above issue before the original adjudicating authority. The appellant having raised the issue, it was obligatory on the part of the original adjudicating authority to give his finding on the same and to re-quantify the demand accordingly - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for proper adjudication after considering the appellant’s plea to allow the cum duty benefit - appeal allowed by wya of remand.

  ---

1 ....34567891011........ 24