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...
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.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even if the duty has been paid in excess of the amount finally held to be payable, unless the excess duty paid has been refunded, the assessee could claim cenvat credit as the department could not get the duty twice.
M/s Hans Steel Rolling Mill Versus Commnr. of Central Excise, Chandigarh – (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) – Recovery of amount due under compounded levy scheme – application of period of limitation – Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that: – In the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Raghuvar (India) Ltd as reported in (2000 -TMI – 45411 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), this court has categorically stated that Section 11A of the Act is not an omnibus provision which stipulates limitation for every kind of action to be taken under the Act or Rules. An example can be drawn with the Modvat Scheme, because even in that particular scheme, Section 11A of the Act had no application with regard to time limit in the administration of that scheme.
Tax sleuths unearthed central excise and service tax evasion amounting to over Rs 5,500 crore in the 2010-11 financial year, even as pressure mounted on the government to crack down on black money.
Circular No. 945/06/2011-CX Exemption is limited to pipes needed for delivery of water from its source to the water treatment plant and from there to the first storage point and that the duty concession was not available for pipes required to supply the treated water from its storage place to the place of consumption. This was the correct reflection of the scope as it existed at the relevant time. However, the scope of this notification was widened by inserting entry (3) to this notification thereby extending the benefit of excise duty exemption also to the pipes of outer diameter exceeding 20 cm when such pipes are integral part of water supply projects by amendment vide Notification No. 6/2007 dated 1-3-07 and subsequently vide Notification No. 26/2009 dated 4-12-09, the outer diameter exceeding 10 cm was prescribed for exemption.
Faced with duplication of work and wastage of resources in dealing with litigation matters, the finance ministry has asked the Central Board of Excise and Customs to file reports to Directorate of Legal Affairs (DLA) on monthly basis only. Besides, it has also instructed that henceforth only zonal chief commissioners would file reports as against the earlier practice where field formations used to send the files.
It has been noticed that several reports are received by the Judicial & Review Section and the Legal Section of the Board as well as the Directorate of Legal Affairs (DLA) in matters relating to litigation. Many of the reports contain similar or identical information and some of them have outlived their utility and are not required any more. The multiplicity of such reports, duplication of work in preparing similar reports for different wings of the Board leads to waste of priceless resources. This was also discussed in the Annual Conference of the Chief Commissioners and Directors General held in June 2010 in New Delhi. It has, therefore, been decided to call for a comprehensive monthly report as part of the Monthly Technical Report (MTR) being sent by the field formations in matters concerning Legal and Judicial Sections of the Board as well as the Directorate of Legal Affairs (DLA).
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
Download Appeal Forms under Customs Act, Central Excise Act, Finance Act (Service Tax) and under Customs Tariff Act 1975 (Anti Dumping Duty). Form No. S.T.-5, Form No. S.T.-6, Form No. S.T.-7, Form No. E.A.-3, Form No. E.A.-4, Form No. E.A.-5, Form No. C.A.-3, Form No. C.A.-4, Form No. C.A.-5
Circular No. 943/04/20 1 1-CX dated 29 April 2011 – Various amendments have been made in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Union Budget 2011. Definitions of the terms like ‘inputs’, ‘input services’, ‘exempt services’, etc. have been amended. Also, amendments have been made in the methodology prescribed for credit reversal in case an assessee is engaged in both taxable and non taxable activities. Many of these amendments appear to be in respect of issues which have been a subject matter of judicial scrutiny in the last few years. Thus, it seems that through these amendments, Government intends to settle the long standing disputes and move ahead.
