Excise Duty Act, Rules Articles News Notification Circulars Instructions. Input Credit, Cenvat, Duty Rate, SSI Exemption, Excise on Jewellery,Excise on Garment
Excise Duty : India reduced excise duty on petrol and diesel to offset rising global crude prices due to geopolitical tensions. The move aimed t...
Excise Duty : Health Security & National Security (HSNS) Cess Act, 2025 introduces a standalone statutory cess aimed at funding national health ...
Excise Duty : The Court upheld the Tribunal’s view that interest cannot be levied when duty paid is fully creditable to downstream units. It c...
Excise Duty : The Court held that duty-paid items supplied directly to site are not includible when the final plant is immovable. The key takeaw...
Excise Duty : Discover how the Central Excise (Amendment) Act, 2025 revamps tobacco taxation, introducing steep excise duties on cigarettes, che...
Excise Duty : CBI Court in Siliguri sentences former Central Excise Superintendent to four years RI and Rs. 40,000 fine in a bribery case regist...
Excise Duty : A special court imposed five years’ rigorous imprisonment and heavy fines after finding assets far beyond known income. The ruli...
Excise Duty : The FAQs confirm that cess is computed on maximum rated machine speed rather than actual production. This ensures certainty in tax...
Excise Duty : The FAQs clarify how excise duty on chewing tobacco, jarda, and gutkha will be levied based on packing machine capacity rather tha...
Excise Duty : CESTAT issues instructions for e-filing appeals, detailing registration, filing process, documents, fees, and compliance with Proc...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Hyderabad allowed CENVAT credit on goods used for an Air Separation Plant, held ownership irrelevant, demand time-barred, a...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Chandigarh set aside a ₹55.01 lakh excise duty demand, holding Section 11D cannot apply to collections made before 20 Sep...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Bangalore set aside excise duty demand, interest and penalty, holding allegations of clandestine removal and undervaluation...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi set aside Cenvat credit recovery, holding third-party statements without cross-examination and corroborative evidence...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Kolkata held crushing and screening alone do not convert iron ore into concentrate under Chapter Note 4, making excise duty...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 37/2026 revises the SAED rate on ATF exports outside India to Rs. 7.5 per litre. The revised rate takes effect fr...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 36/2026 revises SAED rates on petrol and diesel exports outside India to Rs. 4 and Rs. 8.5 per litre. The revised...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 35/2026 extends the Road and Infrastructure Cess exemption on petrol and diesel exports by Public Sector Oil Comp...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 34/2026-Central Excise expands the specified country list in paragraph 2(b) by including Maldives and Mauritius. ...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 33/2026 extends the SAED exemption on ATF exports by Public Sector Oil Companies to Mauritius and Maldives. The a...
The order highlights that both improper issuance of notices and incorrect application of law led to invalid recovery proceedings. The Tribunal set aside the demand and granted relief to the appellants.
The Tribunal ruled that payments made during investigation become duty once appropriated in adjudication. It rejected the argument that such payments remain deposits under protest. The decision reinforces that refund claims for such amounts are subject to limitation.
The Tribunal held that relationship alone is insufficient to reject transaction value without proof of price influence. It ruled that absence of such evidence invalidates demand and penalties.
The issue was whether penalty can be imposed without fraud or suppression. The Tribunal upheld penalty, holding that Rule 25 read with Section 11AC allows up to 10% penalty even without mens rea.
The issue was denial of credit due to post-amendment invoicing. The Tribunal held that credit is admissible since services were completed before the cut-off date.
The judgment clarifies that subsequent departmental communications do not extend limitation periods. The appeal must be filed against the original order within statutory timelines.
The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be imposed where the appellant merely acted as a broker without handling goods. Absence of possession or direct involvement made Rule 26 inapplicable.
The Court directed authorities to reconsider the petitioner’s application under the scheme. It noted that a co-noticee had already received relief under the same proceedings.
The Tribunal held that input service credit is fully admissible before 01.04.2011 but restricted thereafter for construction-related services. It clarified eligibility based on amended exclusion provisions.
The case examined whether procedural violations in transfers between EOUs justify duty demands. The Tribunal held that such lapses alone are insufficient and remanded the matter for fresh verification.
