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 Mumbai held that Rule 16(2) of the Central Excise Rules does not mandate that remanufactured goods be supplied back to the ...
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 : 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...
Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Zonal Unit Ahmedabad’s Vapi Regional Unit has detected a major modus operandi of Central Excise duty evasion and is investigating the same against various CPC (Copper Pthalocyanine Crude) Blue manufacturers operating from Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Ankleshwar and Vapi area.
Excise duty on jaggery powder has been reduced from 12 % to 2 % (without CENVAT) and 6 % (with CENVAT). For this purpose, notification No. 1/2011-CE and 2/2011-CE, both dated 1-3-2011 have been amended by notification No.16 /2013-Central Excise, dated 08-05-2013.
Changes in Excise Duty Rates wef 08.05.2013 on jaggery powder, Particle/Fibre Board, flattened bamboo boards and bamboo flooring tiles, Clay bricks (Tariff Item 69010010) and roofing tiles (Tariff Item 69051000), Steel supplied to the Indian shipyards manufacturing ships and vessels [CETH 8901, 8902, 8904, 8905 (except sub heading 8905 20) or 8906]
I am directed to reiterate the provisions of the Transfer Policy as contained in para 4.7 of the Transfer Policy dated 05.04.2011 that “the officers will, as far as possible, be rotated between the Customs and Central Excise branches every two years and adequate experience in Service Tax branch will also be ensured as far as possible.
One important question survives for consideration and the same is whether the legal mistake committed by the Department can be corrected to ensure that the offender does not escape punishment under the Central Excise law. There is a clear distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law. The former cannot be rectified at later stage but the latter is rectifiable subject, of course, to legal constraints. In the present case, the show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the sole purpose of penalizing them for the offence alleged therein.
The Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Tribunal has held that no third time cess is payable on clearance from an Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to the Domestic Tariff Area Unit (DTA), which is subject matter of litigation for long now.
In the entire scenario, we note that admittedly, a wrong order got issued (as the mistake happened in the hands of Steno) without noticing the facts of the present case, the replacement of said order cannot be considered to be a review of the same. The entire order, which got issued was a mistake inasmuch as the same does not relate to the facts of the present case except that the reference of Appeal No. and impugned order-in-appeal match in the preamble to those in case under consideration making it look as if the present order relates to the appeal of M/s. Paramount Communication.
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), read with sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 (58 of 1957) and sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) Act, 1978 (40 of 1978), the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following amendments in each of the notifications of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance
Firstly, the petitioners had lodged their refund claims at the relevant time itself way back in the year 1991 when the question of classification was decided in their favour by the Commissioner. Secondly, the Department did not release the refund for a considerable period of time since such order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal. Thirdly, the Commissioner (Appeals) disposed of the petitioners’ case on 11-10-2002 with respect to the refund and not with respect to the original claim of classification.
The CESTAT has recorded finding that there is prima facie finding of suppression of production and clandestine removal. The balance sheets thus will not reflect the true and correct financial position of the company. The Tribunal was lenient enough in directing the appellant to deposit only Rs. 1 crore and waiving the remaining amount of Excise duty and penalty, which together with would amount to about Rs. 16 crores. We, therefore, do not find any substantial question of law for consideration and interference in this appeal. The Central Excise Appeal is accordingly dismissed in-limine.
