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...
we find that in the declaration(s) even though the assessee had doubts about the excisability of the said item and even though the assessee had sought clarification as far back on 5th September, 1994; they did not mention the word Scrabble in the body of the declaration(s) filed with the Department. They did not mention the details of the game Scrabble. Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act.
Under Indian tax regime, disputed taxes amounting to hundreds of crores is collected by the state, goods worth crores of rupees is confiscated by the state, penalties worth hundred of crores are imposed on citizens by the state through the process of departmental adjudication. I was thinking whether there is any procedure, which the adjudicator is required to follow before he can demand a tax of crores of rupess or deprive people of their property by confiscating goods or imposing penalty on citizens.
Once it is found that “Right to Natural Justice” is a “personal & individual right”, the person concerned can always waive such right. But the moot question is “whether principles of natural justice are personal individual rights?” This paper attempts to examine this question and waiver of such right if it is not a personal individual right.
Many a times the manufacturer of goods (Central Excise assessee) provides other services to the buyer and charges an amount for those services provided. The services may be like transportation of goods to the buyer premises, transit insurance of the goods, interest charges for the credit given to the buyer, Installation of the goods in the buyer’s premises etc. It may happen that cost incurred by themanufacturer assessee in providing these services is much less than what is charged by the manufacturer assessee for these services. The question is whether excess charges collected by the manufacturer assessee should be included in assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Act?
Under Central Excise law a Small Scale Industries (SSI) have been given some benefits in duty payments. However these benefits are not available when the SSI unit is manufacturing goods bearing Brand name or Trade name of another person. It has always been a question of great disputes as to what is the meaning of the Brand name or trade name, or when do we call goods as Branded goods and SSI benefit is not available. In absence of clear statutory guidelines, case law was developed by various pronouncements of the Tribunal.
The right to Information Act, 2005 declares that the purpose of the Act is to “ promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith”. Thus the Act is fundamental in making the administration transparent and accountable. However, the result can be achieved only if public is aware of their rights and willing to exercise those rights.
Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act empower officers to summon person, ask questions from persons summoned and record their statement. These statements are legally admissible as evidence in various judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. Further the persons summoned are legally required to state the truth. These Sections imposes legal duties on the persons summoned, and have wide ranging legal implications, the authors are of the view that the persons summoned under these sections must have a right to consult a legal practitioners of choice at the time of recording of these statements. However the settled position of law is against the view of the authors.
The Supreme Court held in Poolpandi that a person being interrogated under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not an accused nor can he plead that there is a possibility of being made an accused in future. Hence, he has no right to ask for his advocate presence during enquiry. The whole logic of this judgment fails when the first question is asked from a person summoned, an answer of which is likely to implicate the person summoned in any offence.
The Central Excise law prescribes a time and procedure to pay the duty. When some amount is paid not as per that procedure or at time different from the time of payment of duty, such payment cannot be treated as duty paid under Central Excise. The issue was decided by the Gujrat High Court in Parle International Ltd. V/s VOI [2001 (127) ELT 329 (Guj.)], wherein the Hon’ble Court held that,
It may be noted that rod/bar and wire falls under different heading of CETA. It means that the legislature have treated these two products as two distinct and different products. When the legislative intent of the Parliament is clear about treating these two products differently, it cannot be said that they are same products. The above “Test of different heading” was applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Woolen and Silk Mills Ltd. V/s CCE, Chandigarh [1999 (108) ELT 7(S.C.)], wherein the Hon’ble SC held,
