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...
On behalf of the Central Board of Excise & Customs, I extend a warm welcome to you all at the Annual Conference of Chief Commissioners and Directors General for the year 2011. The annual conference provides us with an opportunity to take stock of our performance in the year gone by, and to analyze the reasons for deficiencies and failures. In a Conference such as this, we capitalize on our strengths; we deliberate on issues that warrant close attention; and with the collective wisdom in hand we set out goals for action, both in the short term and the long term. Even as our core competency continues to be revenue collection, we are aware of our commitment to delivery of services to the taxpayers.
Acting on a specific intelligence, the DRI officers of Siliguri under Kolkata Zonal Unit effected a seizure of Red Sanders Wood weighing 6360 kg. valued at ` 63.60 lakh from a truck bearing registration no. NL-05D-6192 on 13.06.2011 at Leuchipokhri, P.S.- Phansidewa, Dist-Darjeeling. The logs were kept concealed under 235 pcs. of Indian style sanitary pans & 104 pcs. of small pipes.
Please refer to Office Order No.107/2011 dated 03.06.2011 vide which officers in the grade of Addl./Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise were transferred in AGT-201 1. In terms of the said order, all the officers so transferred were to be relieved by their respective controlling officers by 08.06.2011 from their present charge to enable them to join their new place of postings. The Chief Commissioners/Directors General were also requested to send a compliance report by 10.06.2011.
The question of bar of limitation as well as setting aside the penalty is dependant on the leviability of excise duty on the impugned product. That is an issue which is to be decided by the Apex Court and the Apex Court is already seized of the matter. As the findings on that issue would have direct bearing in deciding the issues arisen in these appeals and all these issues arise out of the very same order, it is settled law that these issues cannot be bifurcated and decided by this court.
What were the conditions for levy of duty on articles of jewellery? In order to attract this levy the following conditions were required to be fulfilled: a. The articles of jewellery must be of the type covered under heading 7113 of Central Excise Tariff Act and such articles must have brand name or trade name indelibly affixed or embossed on the articles of jewellery itself. b. “Brand name” or “Trade name” meant a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any writing which is used in relation to a product, for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person.
A gutkha pouch manufacturer, arrested for evading excise duty, has been granted bail by a Delhi court on the condition that he would deposit Rs 30 lakh as penalty with the Central Excise and Customs Department. In the facts and circumstances, I find that applicant (accused) deserves to be granted bail particularly where there is no antecedents (of wrongdoing) against him, Additional Sessions Judge J R Aryan said.
Notification No.14/ 2011 – Central Excise (N.T.) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (2) of rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby exempts from the operation of said rule, every manufacturing unit engaged in the manufacture of recorded smart cards falling under sub-heading 8523 where manufacturer of such goods has a centralized billing or accounting system in respect of such goods manufactured by different manufacturing units and opts for registering only the premises or office from where such centralized billing or accounting is done.
Circular No. 946/07/2011-CX In the context of revision of the delegated powers to write off irrecoverable tax arrears, most of the Chief Commissioners did not recommend any enhancement of the existing monetary limits prescribed vide Board’s Circular dated 21.9.1990. On the other hand, the Chief Commissioners suggested adoption of a Committee system for deciding cases of write off of arrears as followed by the CBDT. It is seen that CBDT, while revising the delegated powers to write off arrears, has prescribed constitution of Committees at different levels for taking a decision to write off arrears in deserving cases.
The unit in question is situated at Nashik, Maharashtra within the jurisdiction of this Court. The said unit was initially administered by the LTU at Delhi and it is only as an afterthought the revenue is contending that the unit in question would not be governed by the LTU scheme for the period where there was no specific approval. If mere forwarding of the consent letter entitles the large tax payer to avail the benefits of the LTU scheme then the benefits of the LTU cannot be denied where the consent is impliedly given by submitting ER-1 returns regularly. The show cause noticed is issued by the LTU, Delhi to the petitioner’s unit at Nashik. Thus, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the show cause notice issued by the LTU, Delhi to the unit of the petitioner set up at Nashik.
In this case the appellant have deposited the amount under protest on differential value of the goods cleared by them to their sister unit/group companies. While adjudication, the show-cause notice demanding the differential duty was dropped and it was subsequently held in the order that the supplementary invoices issued by the assessee under rule 57AE of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is declared void for the purpose of taking MODVAT/CENVAT credit.
