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...
The Hon’ble Apex Court while dismissing the Civil Appeal No.2791 of 2005 preferred by the department vide judgment and order dated 21.7.2010, upheld the findings recorded by the Tribunal that reversal of 8% under 57 CC is not applicable as ‘Bagassee’ is not a final product, but it is a waste. It is worthwhile to mention here that in the judgment dated 22.11.2004 of Tribunal, it was specifically referred in para 2 that the appeal filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise in the case of CCE v. Kicha Sugar Co. Ltd. was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.2.2004.
So far as the cross-objection of the respondent assessee is concerned, we do not find merit on valuation issue when discussion made by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6.2 is read. The respondent assessee claims cum-tax benefit. This point does not need further consideration at this stage for no evidence led to show that the gross value was inclusive of service tax. So far as the taxability is concerned that was not before ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Such issue not been raised nor decided no pleading at this stage is entertainable in second appeal. Cross-objection is dismissed accordingly.
Since the impugned order of the CESTAT has been passed almost after six months from the date of concluding the hearing of the appeal and the Tribunal has not specifically dealt with some of the aforesaid vital issues in spite of the directions given to that effect by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, counsel for the parties state that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CESTAT for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Central Bureau of Investigation has today arrested an Inspector of Central Excise, Service Tax, Cochin(Kerala) for demanding & accepting a bribe of Rs.1.5 lakh from the Complainant. A case was registered against an Inspector of Central Excise, Service Tax, C.R. Building, Cochin for demanding bribe amount of Rs.1.5 lakh from the complainant who […]
It is clear, Section 85 provides that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority can prefer an appeal within three months. Thereafter, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal, the Commissioner can allow the appeal to be preferred within further period of three months and not beyond that.
In the case of Kushboo Plastics (P.) Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (149) ELT 694 (Tri.-Delhi), it was held that credit is admissible on the basis of invoices issued by the consignment agent who are registered as a dealer. Clarification issued by the Jaipur Commissionerate, which was based on the Chief Commissioner’s letter dated 26.5.2000 was taken into consideration.
Hence, the Cenvat credit is admissible to the appellant of the service tax paid by them on the service of ‘dismantling’ as the same is duly covered under the definition of input service.
We are of the view that there should be a meaningful consideration which should be reflected on the note sheets in order to comply with the requirement of Section 35(2) of the Act. In this case, the file does not show any such satisfaction or opinion having been recorded by the Committee of Commissioners. On this ground itself this appeals fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Undisputedly, late Smt. Bimla Rani was the proprietor of the respondent firm M/s Shree Ambica Steel Industries. She died on 17.9.2006 and after her death the legal heir applied for cancellation of Excise registration in the name of the firm and the registration was admittedly cancelled by the Department in October, 2006.
Technical inspection and testing under the Indian Explosives Act, 1884 is a statutory obligation, therefore the same is not liable to tax under Technical Testing and Certification Service. Therefore, the appellants are liable to pay service tax as prayed by the learned counsel.
