Excise Duty Act, Rules Articles News Notification Circulars Instructions. Input Credit, Cenvat, Duty Rate, SSI Exemption, Excise on Jewellery,Excise on Garment
Excise Duty : Understand windfall tax, imposed on oil and gas companies due to unforeseen profit gains. Learn its implications and why India int...
Excise Duty : Explore the legal intricacies of challenging the Excise Department's notice for a public limited company's change in management vi...
Excise Duty : Explore the Madras High Courts decision in India Cement Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, allowing Cenvat credit for electricity...
Excise Duty : Unlock global trade success with the IEC code. Learn its legal significance, role in customs clearance, financial transactions, an...
Excise Duty : Explore the constitutional issues surrounding the Central Government's Excise Duty collection from September 2016 to June 2017. Un...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Key changes in excise duty and Clean Environment Cess under Finance (No. 2) Bill, 2024, including extended deadlines and exemption...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Excise Duty : CBIC, under the Ministry of Finance, seeks feedback on the proposed Central Excise Bill 2024. Stakeholders can submit suggestions ...
Excise Duty : Learn how to navigate SAMAY Dashboard efficiently as a Chief Commissioner/Commissioner or ADG/DG. Streamline order management, upd...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai allows Bhor Industries' appeal, addressing unjust enrichment and duty refund issues from 1970-1982. Remanded case fo...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Delhi held that substantive benefit of the appellant cannot be taken away merely because the refund claim is filed under Ru...
Excise Duty : Explore the CESTAT Delhi ruling allowing cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in cement manufacturing. Full text and expert a...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Mumbai upholds refund claim for Goa Golf Club Pvt Ltd, dismissing the appeal by the Customs Department. Learn about the key...
Excise Duty : In a significant decision, CESTAT Chennai quashes excise duty on 'Black Sand', ruling it as waste, not a dutiable product. Explore...
Excise Duty : Notification 19/2024 reduces Special Additional Excise Duty on petroleum crude. Effective from August 1, 2024. Read the full detai...
Excise Duty : Explore the latest changes under Notification No. 18/2024-Central Excise by the Ministry of Finance, affecting excise duties effec...
Excise Duty : CBIC revises monetary limits for adjudicating show cause notices in Central Excise for commodities under Chapter 24 of Schedule IV...
Excise Duty : Explore Notification No. 17/2024-Central Excise by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Detailed amendments, effective fr...
Excise Duty : Govt reduces Special Additional Excise Duty (Windfall Tax) on production of petroleum crude from Rs. 5200 per tonne to Rs. 3250 pe...
The post of Indirect Tax Ombudsman has been created with the objective of enabling resolution of complaints relating to grievances against Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Department and facilitating settlement of such complaints with satisfaction of the complainant. Para 10 (III) of ‘the Guidelines’ explains as to who can come up with complaint or grievance to the Ombudsman.
Thus according to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Mohan Bottling Co (P.) Ltd.’s case (supra), it can safely be said that sending the order at correct address by registered post is a sufficient compliance of section 37-C of Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is for the assessee to rebut the presumption of service by cogent evidence that in fact order was never served upon him. The appellant in the present appeal in hand failed to discharge its burden of proof, we are able to notice this is a case of service on any authorized person, nor the case of closure of factory nor the case of rebuttal of presumption of by appellant.
High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as held by this Court in the case of CCE v. Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. in CEA No.6/2007 disposed of on 01.09.2010. The said question has to be adjudicated by the Apex Court under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, the appeal is not maintainable.
The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Jabalpur has convicted Shri B.C. Ekka, the then Superintendent & Shri M.K. Singh, the then Excise Inspector, both working in the office of Asstt. Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur and sentenced them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 11,000/- in a bribery case.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner 2005 (189) ETL A-113 (SC) has held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period of 90 days. We also refer to a listed decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Mechanical Works vide which Delhi High Court judgement was upheld.
Learned Advocate submits that lower authorities have also taken into account the Service Tax availed on the capital goods whereas the restriction of 20% utilisation is only in respect of the input service credit. He draws my attention to two precedent decision of the Tribunal in the same appellants case being BSNL v. CCE&C [2009] 21 STT 127 (Bang.-Cestat) and BSNL v. CCE [Final Order No. A/265/2011, dated 28-3-2011]. It stands held in the said decision that the restriction to use 20% of the credit in case of non-maintenance of separate Cenvat accounts for taxable and exempted services is only in respect of inputs service credit. Matter stands remanded to the lower authorities for segregating said credit falling on the input services as also on capital goods and to decide the matter afresh.
After the amendment of Rule 6 of CENVAT credit Rules, 2004 by Finance Act, 2010, in view of the provisions section 73 of Finance Act, 2010, when an assessee gave a calculation of credit attributable to the inputs used in the manufacture of exempted products, the only option available to Revenue was to either accept the calculation or say what is wrong with the calculation and give Revenue’s calculation with proper basis and ask the assessee to rebut Revenue’s calculation. It was no longer open to demand 10% of the price or 5% of the price as the case may be of the exempted products. Therefore, we feel that the order has not been passed properly. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of predeposit for hearing the appeal, we proceed to decide the appeal itself.
India has developed an Authorized Economic Operator (AEO) Programme consistent with World Customs Organization (WCO) SAFE Framework of Standards. The trade supply chain has become extremely complicated and vulnerable to external threats which led to an urgent need to have a system that ensures end to end supply chain security while ensuring faster release of goods. Authorized Economic Operator Programme has been developed by the WCO to standardize the procedure for this programme. Many Customs administrations globally have also adopted the same or similar programmes to ensure supply chain security.
As per section 37C(l)(a), it was mandatory on the part of the Revenue to serve a copy of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by registered post with acknowledgment due to the assessee. Admittedly in the present case, a copy of the order has not been sent by registered post. In these circumstances, it could not be said that the requirement of Section 37C has been complied with.
It is an undisputed position that duty and penalty are arrears of the company. It was the company that was the person engaged in manufacture of goods and registered as manufacturer under section 6 of the said Act and therefore obliged to pay excise duty. Further under the Act and the Rules, the person liable to pay duty is the person who manufactures the goods in terms of rule 7 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, as now existing. Therefore the obligation to pay duty is on the company.
