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 Delhi held that works contract services used for repair and maintenance of existing plant and machinery qualify as input se...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Chennai held that exports made under Notification No. 30/2004-CE and the DEPB scheme cannot be included in exempted turnove...
Excise Duty : The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued more than three years after the Department became aware of the facts was time-...
Excise Duty : CESTAT held that where the value of goods sent for job work had already been considered for credit reversal purposes, including it...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Chandigarh held that the manufacturer and marketing company could not be treated as related persons under the Central Excis...
Excise Duty : The Lakshadweep Excise Regulation, 2026 establishes a comprehensive framework for licensing, manufacture, sale, transport, and con...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 25/2026 revises SAED on ATF exports to Rs 9.5 per litre with effect from 1 June 2026; domestic petrol and diesel ...
Excise Duty : Notification No. 24/2026 revises SAED rates on petrol and diesel exports from 1 June 2026, setting duty at Rs 1.5 and Rs 13.5 per ...
Excise Duty : CBIC revised SAED on ATF exports to Rs. 16 per litre effective 16 May 2026, impacting aviation fuel exporters and export duty cost...
Excise Duty : The Ministry of Finance amended the central excise notification issued in March 2026 by revising rates applicable to specified goo...
The CENVAT credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of input or input service which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods or for provision of exempted services, except in the circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (2)
Tribunal shall not ordinarily admit an application, unless it is satisfied that the applicant had availed of all the remedies available to him under the relevant service rules as to redressal of grievances and that by itself means that exemption could be drawn under particular circumstances
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Jaipur has ruled in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise that CENVAT credit cannot be denied for non-registration of head office as Input Service Distributor (ISD), since omission to obtain registration as an ISD can at best be considered as procedural irregularity which cannot stand in the way of allowing substantial benefit of CENVAT credit,
In the case of Shri Dharampal Lalchand Chug Vs CCE, it was held by Bombay High Court that the period of limitation prescribed in section 11A of the Act cannot be enlarged. Once it is possible to scrutinise and verify the compliance of the terms and conditions on which the exemption has been issued in this case
In the case of Vodafone India Ltd. V/s. The Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by Bombay High Court that by following the principles laid down in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, a telecom service provider is not entitled to credit of duty paid on towers
In the case of CCE V/s. M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd., the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, as amended, applies to the cases where though an order has been passed directing refund, implementation of the order is pending.
The CBEC vide Circular No. 1006/13/2015-CX dated September 21, 2015 has clarified that Board Circulars contrary to the judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court become non-est in law and should not be followed.
Notification No. 19/2015-Central Excise (N.T.) G.S.R. 723(E).- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby invests the officers specified in column (1) of the Table below, with the powers of the Central Excise Officer of the rank specified in column (2) of the said Table, in the jurisdiction specified in Notification No. 27/2014-Central Excise, dated the 16th September, 2014 published in the Gazette of India, part-II, section 3, Sub-Section(i), vide G.S.R. 651 (E), dated the 16th September, 2014, namely:-
It is painful to note that in spite of various monitoring mechanisms in existence, such occurrence could not be avoided. The matter has been viewed seriously and all the adjudicating authorities are directed to pass adjudication orders within time limits as prescribed, so that the above said instance is not repeated in future.
In the case of, M/s. Aidees Electronics Pvt. Ltd. V/s. CCE it was held by Madras High Court that if the original authority had invoked the enhanced period of limitation on only one particular ground viz., suppression of fact and the appellate authority had set aside that finding
