Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2011 2011 2011 (8) Central Excise - 2011 (8) 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 176 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 640
  

  Valuation - Inclusion of octroi, transport, loading and unloading charges, manufacturing expenses, wastage in the assessable value of yarn - Held That:- Annexure-A has shown octroi, transport charges and manufacturing expenses are claimed to be inclusive in the cost of raw materials. Case remanded back to verify these charges are separately shown or not as claimed by the appellants.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 639
  

  Export - Appellant cleared sugar on CT-1 basis - Exporter diverted the goods to DTA - Held That:- It was the duty of the Maritime Commissioner while issuing CT.1 certificate to ascertain whether the merchant exporter is a genuine exporter or not. As the appellants have cleared the sugar without payment of duty on the strength of CT.1 certificate, therefore, they cannot be held having mala fide intention to evade duty. We have also found that CT.1 certificate is a genuine certificate and it is not alleged that CT.1 certificate has been obtained by fraud. - No penalty.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 638
  

  Suo motu credit availed as it was paid twice - Held That:- In view of BDH Industries Ltd. vs. CCE (2008 -TMI - 30889 - CESTAT MUMBAI) There is no provision under the Central Excise Act or Rules for taking self credit of duty paid. The only provision is Section 11B of the Act seeking refund of duty paid, thus manufacturer was not entitled to credit.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 623
  

  Valuation - Assessee manufacturer of M.V Parts - Specification, Drawing & design provided by Customer -Revenue: drawing and designing should form part of assessable were taken as 2% of assessable value - Held That:- In view of CE, Pune vs M/s. Bharat Forge Ltd. (2000 - TMI - 49915 - CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI), drawing supplied by the customers for product manufactured by the manufacturer, the cost thereof is not includible in the assessable value.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 622
  

  Goods(bales) removed without entry in RG-1 - Revenue contended as clandestine removal liable to confiscation and penalty - Held That:- In Textile industries lot numbers are compulsory. "There is not a single case where department has proved that lot number have not been allotted or same lot number has been allotted to two different lots. Officers could not prove malafide intentions of assessee thus penalty could not be invoked.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 621
  

  Assessee manufacturer of Telephone and Modular Terminal Rosset (MTR) which are connectors and help in operation of MTR - Telephone manufactured by themselves and MTR from SSI - Appellant transfers raw material to SSI which are used in manufacture of MTR under job work challan 57F(4)- SSI cleared good without duty as credit on input goods availed by appellant and similarly liability to pay duty - Assessee failed to discharge duty - After two years credit was reversed and assessee denied interest liability on the ground that he was not liable to duty of excise - Held That:- Tribunal rightly held that the MTRs do not constitute an integral part of the telephone, but are accessories on which duty is payable on clearance made by the appellant. Since appellant has availed duty credit on the inputs purchased and transferred to job workers for manufacture, appellant has to necessarily pay duty on the MTRs sold and adjust duty credit availed on the components by following Rule 57A extracted above.Appeal challenging the demand of duty is dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 601
  

  Application for Settlement Commission - Search reveled petitioner wrongly availing benefit of SSI exemption and were not registered and no returns were filed with excise authority - assessee seek consideration for referring case before Settlement Commission - Held That:- Clause (a) clearly lays down that unless the applicant has filed returns, showing production, clearance and Central Excise duty paid in the prescribed manner, no such application shall be entertained. Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 provides for filing of monthly return in the form specified by every assessee about their production and removal of goods and other relevant particulars, within ten days after the close of the month to which the return relates. In the case of small scale manufacturers, the return has to be filed quarterly. The concept of return has to be understood in that context and that is what exactly the Special Bench has stated. The submission of Mr. Jain that they had accepted all the allegations and had paid the entire duty liability in the spirit of settling the matter does not stand to reasons. This does not satisfy mandatory requirement of clause (a) to Section 32E(1) of the Act. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 600
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Jurisdiction of the high court - Held that:- question determining rate & value of duty are to be heard before supreme court cannot be a ground to hold that the appeal against the order of pre-deposit would also be maintainable before the Apex Court. In view of Navin Chemicals Mfg & Trading Co (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), pre-deposit order passed by CESTAT cannot be said to have direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty/to the value of goods.

  Levy of duty of excise on jute carpets - In Commissioner of C. Ex., Bhubaneswar-1 v. Champdany Industries Ltd., (2009 (9) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) relying upon Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, the Supreme Court held that dominant intention in the rule specifically, clause (a) thereof is that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to the heading providing a more general description. Following this interpretation in paragraph-46 of the judgment it was held that the goods manufactured by the respondent-company are to be classified as jute carpet floor coverings.

  We are surprised to find that the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has, in the present case having considered the foresaid judgments, which in our view cover the question, went on to distinguish the judgment both on question of facts as well as interpretation of Rule 3, and held that the appellant does not have a strong prima facie case for consideration of the application for waiver. After going through the judgment of the Supreme Court and facts obtained in the case we are unable to find any distinction, whatsoever. - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 599
  

  Cenvat - clearance of inputs by job worker without reversing the credit as the final duty is paid by the principal manufacturer - Revenue treated it as deemed removal of input as such - Held That:- In view of Mahadev Industries Ltd. Vs.CCE (1999 (6) TMI 202 - CEGAT, MADRAS) & BPL Electronics Ltd. Vs. CCE (1994 (3) TMI 190 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI),demand is not payable on inputs or capital goods due to change in ownership when the same are not removed from the factory of production. Appellant entitle to Credit.

  Proof of existence of Inputs in stock - non production of stock register - Appellant to show from the records that factually the inputs were in their stock on 10.06.2001. Merely the annexure to the sale invoices mentioning the item will not prove the case of Appellant in this regard.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 594
  

  Cenvat Credit - bifurcation of cenvat credit - Cenvat credit on inputs which are not dutiable was the center of controversy - Retrospective amendments provided a response from the Commissioner within two months from the date of application and payment of duty short paid with interest within 10 days from the Commissioner's communication - Held That:- when the petitioners have made a prima facie case of having paid the the duty with interest as per their calculation and also of having bifurcated the Cenvat credit attributable to exempt and non-exempt goods as suggested by the Commissioner in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that the application is required to be reexamined.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 593
  

  Reversal of Cenvat Credit - Assessee manufacturer of packet tea - took credit of input goods till 27 feburary 93 from next day final product became exempted - Show cause issued demanding reversal of cenvat credit - Assesssee replied since credit was taken when final product was dutiable thus reversal is unjustified - Held That:- MODVAT credit taken in respect of inputs will have to be reversed when final product becomes exempt at a date subsequent to the receipt of inputs. Reliance placed on Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. (1997 - TMI - 44650 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD). Decided against assessee.

  Extended period of limitation - Held That:- In view of the decision in Calcom Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE (2000 - TMI - 49978 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI), credit of duty utilised in the manufacture of exempted goods is required to be reversed without any reference of time limit, and that Show Cause Notice even after six months is not time barred having regard to the language of Rule 57-I (2). - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 592
  

  Waiver of Pre deposit - Question of law raised: penalty is imposable upon the Appellant under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 when the Appellant had never availed of Cenvat Credit? - issue of invoices by the Appellant also implies taking of cenvat credit? - Held That:- Tribunal proceeded on the erroneous basis in paragraph 5 of its order that the Appellant had not disputed having issued invoices passing a huge Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.4.05 Crores. This factual basis with respect and prima facie appears to be erroneous. Case remitted back to tribunal for a fresh decision on the application for waiver of predeposit.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 567
  

  Classification - Macraberin tablets composition of Vitamin B1, B6 and B12 - Held That:- In view of E.Merck (India) Ltd. vs. CCE (2004 - TMI - 52679 - CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI), classifiable under Chapter 30 of the CET and not under Chapter 29.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 566
  

  Principles of Natural Justice - exemption under Notification 287/86 dated 5.5.86 for product Rustolene Super Spray falling under Chapter 27 of the Central Excise Tariff. - Benefit of exemption denied without giving reasons - Three personal hearing, respondent didn’t appeared - Held That:- Matter remanded back to original authority to decide afresh after observing principles of "natural justice". Respondents also directed to appear without fail.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 560
  

  Eligible of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on outdoor catering services for providing canteen facilities to their workers - Held That:- Whether providing of food/catering services to the workers was the requirement of the Factory Act or any other Labour Laws of the Central Government or State Government, which were applicable to them. If under the Factory Act or any other Labour Laws, the respondent are required to provide catering services to their workers, the same would have to be treated as input services and would be eligible for Cenvat credit while if they are not required to provide under the Factory Act or any other Labour Laws, catering facilities to their workers, but still they are providing the same as a welfare measure, in such a situation, the outdoor catering services would not be covered by the definition of "input services"

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 540
  

  Territorial jurisdiction - assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay may invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it which may be contrary to judgments of the High Court of Bombay. This cannot be allowed - Held that:- place where the cause of action had arisen and where the original adjudication had taken place which would constitute forum conveniens for all the parties concerned, Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeals,

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 536
  

  Demand - limitation - whether suppression can be alleged and extended period and penal provisions can be invoked, in cases where exemption is claimed for supplies to Projects financed by an Organization, which was declared as not notified subsequent to clearances, consistent view has been taken by the Hon ble Tribunal (some cases upheld by Supreme Court and High Court) that in such cases, extended period is not invocable and penalties are not imposable - reliance was placed in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. [2005 -TMI - 54919 - CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI]- Hence, the exemption under Notification 108/95 is not available to the project financed by JBIC but demand beyond the period of one year from the date of show-cause notice are not sustainable and penalties under Section 11AC on the assessee firm and penalty on GM of the assessee firm is also not sustainable.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 535
  

  Cenvat credit - Credit availed on the basis of fake and fictitious invoices - Tribunal referred decision in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors (2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) has taken into consideration all the pleas raised by the appellants therein and have expressed opinion and has remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority to decide the matters afresh, after taking into consideration the instructions issued by the CBE&C and in the light of the observations made in the said order - Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 532
  

  Levy of interest under Section 11AB - differential duty paid by the appellants under supplementary invoices on account of retrospective price increase granted to the appellants subsequent to the removal of goods - whether payment of duty before issuance of show cause notice exempts the assessee from liability to pay interest u/s. 11AB - The issue was whether the interest was not paid in terms of Section 47 read with Section 61(3) of the Customs Act and in that context it was observed that The position being similar held that the same logic will apply in respect of the recovery to be made under the Customs Act where no period of limitation has been prescribed - The said observation was made having noted that under Section 28 of the Customs Act, period of limitation prescribed for recovery of duty is six months or five years and also the period for claim of refund was six months - In that context, it was observed that where no period of limitation is specifically prescribed for any specific action under the Act, the recovery should satisfy the principle of such general provision of recovery of the duty - Accordingly appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 531
  

  Cenvat credit - whether proportionate credit should be reversed in cases where a manufacturer avails credit of the amount of duty paid by supplier as reflected in the excise invoice, but subsequently the supplier allows some trade discount or reduces the price, without reducing the duty paid by him - Appellants submitted that Circular No.877/15/2008 dated 17.11.2008 issued by the Board and the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of ECE Industries Limited vs. C.C.E., Rohtak (2011 -TMI - 206003 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI)submitted that mere reduction in the price cannot affect the right of the purchaser to avail credit equivalent to the duty paid on the goods in terms of the original price - Therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders and remand the matters to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

  ---

1 ....23456789