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...
Question involved in the appeal is whether the duty paid by the job worker on goods, received back by the appellant can be availed as Cenvat credit by the appellant. I find that the issue involved in the appeal is clearly covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Nestle India Ltd. (supra). Once the duty has been paid by job worker on goods sent back to appellant, there is no reason to deny benefit of Cenvat credit to the appellant.
It was held by Honorable SC that merely because assessee, may be, by mistake, paid duty on goods which were exempted from such payment, did not mean that goods would become goods liable for duty under Act and it was Further held that merely because assessee had not claimed any refund on duty paid by him would not come in way of claiming benefit of Notification.
In Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Ishaan Research Lab (P) Ltd. (Supra), the issue before this Court was whether the products manufactured by the assessee would fall under Sub-Heading 3003.30 as medicament or under Chapter 33 as cosmetics. The assessee contended that each of the products was having ayurvedic medicinal herbs in it and even the labels on these products claim specifically the medicinal properties of the product. The assessee further urged that even if the user of product leads to improvement in appearance of a person that by itself cannot bring it into the category of “cosmetics” if otherwise the product is having a medicinal value and is marketed as such.
Rising litigation with taxpayers is matter of serious concern for the Government. A need for reducing the litigation has been emphasized by the Finance Minister on various occasions. As per the directions of the Finance Minister, a Standing Committee has been constituted in the Central Board of Excise and Customs to identify systemic causes for litigation and preparing a roadmap for reducing the existing litigation and avoiding litigation in future on the indirect tax side. The Committee consists of two Members of the Board, nominated officials of CBEC, and a representative of Law Ministry.
The levy of interest is on the actual amount, which is withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax from the due date. The interest cannot be claimed from the date of wrong availment of CENVAT credit and that the interest would be payable from the date CENVAT credit is taken or utilized wrongly.
Some enquiries have been initiated by the departmental agencies seeking to demand duty on such articles of jewellery which are packed in boxes, pouches etc. bearing a trade name or brand name or mark. References have since been received from the Trade requesting for providing clarity on levy of excise duty on jewellery sold under a Brand name. The industry has drawn attention to condition no, 8 of notification no.5/2006-CE dated 01.03.06 which provides that the exemption shall not be applicable to articles of jewellery of heading no 7113 on which brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself. It has been argued that accordingly only such jewellery where brand name or trade name is indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself should attract excise duty and duty should not be charged on the articles which do not themselves bear such marking but which are packed in a jewellery box or pouch bearing a trade name or brand name or in whose case, the warranty card or certificate of quality issued at the time of sale bears a trade name or brand name.
Explore the Supreme Court’s ruling in Customs Appeal 1150/2004 between Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, and Denso Kirloskar Industries. Details on CESTAT judgment.
CCE Vs. M/s. Plaxair India Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court)- In the present case, it is the stand of the assessee that the assessee had paid the duty under the provisions of the Act before the issue of the Show Cause Notice and, therefore, not liable for the payment of penalty and interest on the duty so paid under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
After hearing the matter for some time, we notice that the Revenue has not produced the order passed by CESTAT dated 10.01.2010 and the only order produced by them is the interim passed by CESTAT and not the final orders against which the appeal had been preferred by the Revenue before the High Court. . In the absence of the order passed by the CESTAT on merits, which has been affirmed by the High Court, it would not be proper for us to decide the lis between the parties. Further, we would be handicapped while appreciating the stand of the Assessee as well as the Revenue, while appreciating the legal issues that the parties would urge before us. In that view of the matter, we reject the appeal solely on the ground that the Revenue has not filed the appropriate papers before this Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.
No doubt there is a specific entry which speaks of Slagwool and Rockwool under Sub-heading No.6803.00, but there is yet another entry which is consciously introduced by the Legislature under sub-heading No.6807.10, which speaks of goods in which Rockwool, Slagwool and products thereof are manufactured by use of more than 25% by weight of blast furnace slag. It is not in dispute that the goods in question are those goods in which more than 25% by weight of one or more of red mud, press mud or blast furnace slag is used. If that be the case, then, in a classification dispute, an entry which is beneficial to the assessee requires to be applied and the same has been done by the adjudicating authority,
