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 : Gujarat HC quashed rejection of ₹3.74 crore re-credit and directed credit restoration, holding PLA payment could not result in d...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai set aside excise demand, holding optional type test charges collected separately after manufacture are not includibl...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi set aside Rule 6 demands, holding job work under Notification 214/86-CE is not an exempted service and waste and scra...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai set aside excise demands, holding Rule 8 inapplicable as prototype vehicles cleared for testing were not used in fur...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Hyderabad allowed CENVAT credit on goods used for an Air Separation Plant, held ownership irrelevant, demand time-barred, a...
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 issue was whether transportation and insurance charges should be excluded from assessable value. The Tribunal held they must be included since delivery occurred at the buyer’s premises, making them part of transaction value.
CESTAT Kolkata held that the charge of clandestine removal of goods cannot be proved on the basis of private records recovered during the course of investigation in the absence of any corroborative evidence in support. Accordingly, order set aside and appeal is allowed.
The Tribunal ruled that the Department failed to prove that goods classified as trading were actually manufactured by the assessee. In absence of proper investigation, excise demand and penalties were held unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that moulds and dies supplied by customers form part of assessable value as additional consideration. It clarified that their amortised cost must be included in valuation of finished goods.
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.
