CESTAT Delhi

No SSI Exemption on manufacturing own Goods with 3rd Party Brand

M/s Hindustan Machines Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi)

In as much as the brand name owner M/s Hindustan Machines has been held to be entitled to the benefit of Notification, the other units using the said brand name would become entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption Notification as they are not hit by para 7 of the Notification....

Read More

Department cannot insist to avail particular option under Rule 6

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs CCE, Jaipur – I (CESTAT Delhi)

They were availing Cenvat credit of education cess paid on the inputs used by them in the manufacture of tractors. The tractors manufactured by the appellants are exempted from payment of excise duty vide Notification No. 23/2004-CE dated 09/07/2004....

Read More

Corroborative evidence should be correlated to prove clandestine clearance

Shri Avinash M Baliga & Others Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)

it was held that in order to prove clandestine removal of excisable goods, the department should take reasonable steps and provide correlated corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has made cladenstine removal of goods....

Read More

Department cannot reject certificate issued by competent authority

Dhar Cement Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that the Department cannot reject the certificate issued by the competent authority. In case the certificate was obtained by mis-representation or not presenting full facts the only option left to the department is to approach the competent authority with all the evidences to modify/cancel the certificate issued already....

Read More

Source of fund not relevant for proving unjust enrichment

Executive Engineer,Central Workshop Division, Chattisgarh State Electricity Board Vs C.C.E., Raipur (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that the unjust enrichment can’t be proved by establishing the source of funds out of which the excise duty has been paid. Further it was held that in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise....

Read More

CENVAT allowed on fabrication of capital goods – CESTAT

CCE & ST, Raipur Vs M/s. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that CENVAT credit on various items used in the fabrication of capital goods can be availed. In the present case, the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the usage of different items in the installation of capital goods....

Read More

Department cannot insist to avail particular option under Rule 6

M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Vs CCE (CESTAT Delhi)

Tractors having engine capacity less than 1800 CC are not liable to such cess. Appellants are engaged in manufacture of both type of tractors and were using common inputs without maintaining separate accounts for receipt and consumption of these inputs. Invoking the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 proceedings wer...

Read More

Corroborative evidence enough for proving clandestine clearances

M/s. K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. Vs CCE, Delhi-I (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that in case of clandestine clearance of goods, wherein the Revenue has discharged the burden of corroborating, establishing clandestine clearance of dutiable items from the appellant’s unit and wherein the appellant is merely contesting the duty demand and penalty on the ground that the detailed further investigation regard...

Read More

CENVAT allowed on linkage of inputs/capital goods to production

C.C.E. Raipur Vs M/s. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that the assessee should produce corroborative evidence to establish that the inputs/Capital goods are used in the process of manufacturing and accordingly the CENVAT credit should be allowed....

Read More

Use of brand name on Ayurvedic product not dis-entitles exemption

M/s.Mayar India Ltd. Vs C.C.E. (CESTAT Delhi)

It was held that for claiming the exemption of excise duty on ayurvedic product, there is no condition that the product to be sold exclusively in the name mentioned in the textbooks. The mention of the house name/ brand-name cannot lead to the conclusion that these products are not sold in the name specified in Ayurvedic text and accordin...

Read More
Page 1 of 1512345...10...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,305)
Company Law (3,192)
Custom Duty (6,362)
DGFT (3,312)
Excise Duty (3,977)
Fema / RBI (3,107)
Finance (3,271)
Income Tax (24,127)
SEBI (2,641)
Service Tax (3,245)

Search Posts by Date

March 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031