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 141 to 160 of 176 Records

• 2011 (8) TMI 270
  

  classification - Moisture testing machine - keeping in view the functions of these machines, which is to ascertain the moisture contents in the grains/seeds, it can be safely and legally concluded that these are checking/measuring instruments falling under Chapter Heading 9031.00 of the CETA. The argument of the Counsel that this is a general Chapter Heading and as such, the specific Heading 8437 of CETA has to prevail over it for classifying the machines in question, cannot be accepted as the machines do not at all fall within the four corners of Chapter Heading 8437.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 261
  

  Demand - Assessable value - assessee had filed the price declaration of the goods to be sold at depots in the form of Annexure II declaring therein the sale value of the goods manufactured by it, wherein the freight charges incurred on transportation of the said goods from the factory to depots were not included which were recovered later on from its customers on depot sale basis - the present appeals have been filed by the Revenue as an abundant caution so that the impugned order does not attain finality till the decision in review petition filed by the department - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 260
  

  Demand - Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001, 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 and 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - the issue involved was regarding eligibility of benefit of notification to the product Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injectio - Held that: benefit of Notification is to be extended to the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 250
  

  cenvat credit - Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - whether Shri Navneet Agarwal is liable to penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 when the Rule 26(2) was not in force - The view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was that when a person was concerned in selling and dealing with the goods which were liable to confiscation under Rule 25(1) (d), Rule 26(1) is also applicable - Decided against the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 249
  

  Penalty - mandatory penalty u/s 11AC - issue needs to be sorted on record based information and which needs to be appreciated by the adjudicating authority only. We find that learned counsel was correct in bringing our notice the judgment of this Bench in the case of M/s. Sambhu Textile Mills Pvt. Limited & Others, wherein, in Para 6 to 8, the bench directed the lower authorities to consider the disputed issue afresh in the light of Hon ble Gujarat High Court decision. . Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition also get disposed of.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 235
  

  Refund - 100% EOU - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - disallowed on the ground that refund of accumulated credit can be allowed only in the case of physical export and not in the case of deemed export - The Hon'ble High Court in CCE Vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries (2010 -TMI - 205858 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) upheld the view taken by Tribunal that the clearances made by one 100% EOU to another 100% EOU, which are deemed export are to be treated as physical export for the purpose of granting refund of unutilized CENVAT Credit contemplated under the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 228
  

  Cenvat credit - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules - Since the issue is limited to penalty only, instead of considering the stay application, appeal itself is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides, after waiver of requirement of pre-deposit - show cause notice and the order of both the lower authorities, I find no where there is an allegation of suppression or mis-declaration or intention to evade duty - the question of imposing penalty does not arise since once the duty demanded is paid, the provisions of Section 11A (2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 come into play and according to this Section once the duty and interest are paid, the matter is to be treated to have been concluded and no show cause notice is required to be issued - Appeals are allowed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 227
  

  Refund - It is seen from the records that in this case, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 3,52,000/- as pre-deposit. After complying with the directions of the Tribunal, the matter was taken up for disposal and finally decided on 24.01.2003 in favour of the assessee - Held that: the claim of interest by the assessee from the date of pre-deposit to the date of refund sanctioned by the Revenue seems to be an incorrect preposition of law - Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 218
  

  Demand - 100%EOU - clearance of Polyester Texturised Yarn, which is final product into Domestic Tariff Area without payment of duty - Concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 8/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 / 2/95-CE dated 04.01.1995 - Held that: - The decision in the case of M/s. Sanjari Twisters was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order dated 13.08.2008, in Civil Appeal No. 13631 of 2008 dismissed the appeal. Therefore, it will be seen that not only there are decisions of the Tribunal in the above cases in favour of the assessee but in the case of Sanjari, the decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court also.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 206
  

  Demand - Search - shortage of 7,277 kgs of one of the raw materials - the appellant submitted that there is absolutely no other evidence of clandestine removal of the finished goods other than the shortage of material found in the factory. He also submits that other than the shortage of one raw material, no discrepancy in respect of other raw material or finished product was found - Held that:- the Tribunal cited by the ld.Counsel, in the case of Remson Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Delhi (2007 -TMI - 1582 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) consider that it would be appropriate to follow the precedent decisions cited by the ld.Counsel and set aside the demand of duty on the finished goods - Decided in favour of assessee

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 184
  

  Penalty under Section 11AC - Clandestine removal - Held that apex Court has held that provisions of Section 11AC would automatically get attracted when there is clandestine removal.Upholding the penalty imposable on the assessee under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944, we give option to the assessee to pay the penalty equivalent to 25% of the amount of duty confirmed

  personal penalties - find that the individuals are either partners or directors of the assessees - It is on record that all these partners and directors have categorically stated in their statement recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, that they were having the knowledge of clandestine removal of the goods, without being reflected in the books of accounts - If that be so, we cannot sustain the impugned order setting aside the imposing of penalties on the individuals - On a specific query from the Bench, it has been informed that the statements recorded were not retracted - . The impugned orders to the extent of setting aside the personal penalties on the Director and Partners under Rule 26 is not sustainable,

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 173
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - Rule 96ZQ5 - Non discharge of duty liability on the goods for which the APC was provisionally fixed by the authorities - Lower authorities have confirmed the demand and imposed penalty under Rule 96ZQ, which is three times the duty liability confirmed. At this juncture, without going into merits of the case, we find that it would meet the ends of justice, if the appellant is directed to deposit the entire amount of duty involved i.e. Rs. 1,64,416/-. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit Rs. 1,64,416/- On such compliance being reported, learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to restore the appeal to its original number in his records and dispose the same after following the principles of natural justice - Stay petition and appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 164
  

  Interest and penalty - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Ruchira Papers Ltd. (2009 -TMI - 34967 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT) - it will be open to the assessee to urge that such question does require consideration in which event, the learned Tribunal shall proceed to determine as to whether the points raised by the assesee require determination on the factual/legal matrix and whether the precedent cited before us by the respondent is attracted/applicable to the facts of the case - Appeal is disposed of

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 163
  

  CENVAT Credit on the goods rejected by the customers - Since, all the returned goods and their clearance, the batch number did not change and therefore process did not amount to manufacture - the appellant should have reversed the CENVAT Credit taken at the time of clearing the rejected goods - Therefore, the demand of differential duty has to be upheld - the differential duty demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant did not produce any evidence to show that CENVAT Credit has not been taken.

  As regards penalty - Penalty equivalent to duty has been imposed, but no option to pay duty, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty has been extended by the lower authorities - if the amount of differential duty, interest and penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty is not paid within 30 days, penalty shall be equal to the duty demand as per provisions of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 152
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit --eligibility of availment of cenvat credit on the basis of fake invoices - Sine the, identical issues have been dealt by this Bench in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Silk Mills & others [in 117 matters] (2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD), the issue was decided by way of remand to original adjudicating authority with directions to reconsider the issue afresh. - Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 130
  

  Demand - Reversal of cenvat credit - Since this evidence had not been produced before original adjudicating authority, the evidence produced by the appellant before Commissioner (Appeals) were not considered on the ground that additional submissions can be entertained only after appellant satisfied the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant was prevented from submitting the same as provided in Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeal) Rules, 2001 - If the department was to make allegation that the party did not have any evidence to show that principal manufacturer had paid duty, the conclusion arrived at by the original adjudicating authority could not have been faulted with - It is settled law that while considering the stay petitions and waiver of pre-deposit, only prima facie case is considered and detailed examination of the facts and legal aspects are not done - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand to Commissioner (A)

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 123
  

  Demand - Classification - shortage of Lamination material - Cenvat credit - Held that: appellant s plea that just on the basis of shortage of Lamination material, continers and Zippers, it cannot be presumed that the missing material had been used for manufacture of unaccounted Gutka cleared clandestinely without payment of duty. In view of this, duty demand of Rs.1,53,239/- is not sustainable - The shortage of Cenvat Credit availed on Lamination and Zippers maybe due to short receipt of the same - Decided in favor of the assessee

  Regarding penalty - Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules - no evidence has been produced by the Department that they were involved in acquiring possession of or in transporting, removing, selling or purchasing of any excisable goods or in any other manner dealing with excisable goods, which they knew or had reason to believe were liable for confiscation - Appeal are allowed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 116
  

  Cenvat credit - Classification - Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - It was held that there was no proper documents, entry in the statutory records was delayed and the credit was availed on the basis of endorsement and this amounts to contravention of provisions of Rule 57-I, with intention to evade duty and therefore attracts the provisions of sub Section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Once the extended time limit has been invoked by invoking proviso to Section 11A, the question whether the same can be invoked or not, is to be considered - whether there was any suppression/ mis-declaration or fraud, the appellants have written a letter on 02.01.1989 to Superintendent explaining the facts and I find that there is no dispute about the correctness of the facts incorporated in the letter dated 02.01.1989 - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 109
  

  Demand - Notification No.245/83 CE dated 13.9.1983 - appellants contested the show-cause notice but the Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai.V confirmed the demand amounting to Rs. 6,62,491.17 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,25,000/- on them - appellants case is squarely covered by the Tribunal s order cited supra in the case of M/s. Searle (India) Ltd. wherein it has been held that excise duty in explanation to the said notification covers basic excise duty as well as special excise duty - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (8) TMI 105
  

  Wrong availment of SSI exemption - appeal against the order of settlement commission - The Settlement Commission opined that since the petitioner was neither registered with the Central Excise Department, nor did they file any declaration or return during the relevant period, they were not eligible to the benefit of the aforesaid exemptions for SSI units with regard to the goods of the brand name 'Kalsi'. It was observed that the brand name 'Kalsi' was owned by another person - petitioner contended that the applicant was using brand names owned by the same family and were under the impression that the benefits of the said exemptions for SSI units were available - Held that: - the order passed by the Settlement Commission is absolutely defensible and there is no warrant to interfere with the same

  ---

1 ....456789