Excise Duty Act, Rules Articles News Notification Circulars Instructions. Input Credit, Cenvat, Duty Rate, SSI Exemption, Excise on Jewellery,Excise on Garment
Excise Duty : The Supreme Court upholds CENVAT credit for telecom infrastructure, ruling in favor of telecom operators on towers and shelters....
Excise Duty : The MOOWR scheme offers deferred duties, export benefits, and operational ease for manufacturers in India, aiding growth but facin...
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 : Govt clarifies tax increase on tobacco products, citing changes in excise duty on cigarettes and GST rules. Revenue funds overall ...
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 : Analysis of CESTAT Kolkata's decision in Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs CGST & Central Excise, focusing on alleged clandestine ...
Excise Duty : CESTAT Kolkata allows CENVAT Credit to Rexon Strips Ltd., ruling that inputs used in capital goods are eligible, setting aside pri...
Excise Duty : Appellant and SKF India are both subsidiaries of AB SKF Sweden. Appellant & SKF India have agreed to pool & combine their respecti...
Excise Duty : The Settlement Commission held that the rectification of errors under Section 154 was confined to arithmetical or clerical errors ...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court held that the agreement between the oil marketing companies indicates that the price of petroleum products agreed un...
Excise Duty : Govt extends provisions under Excise Notification 11/2017 from 2025 to 2026. Changes take effect on February 2, 2025....
Excise Duty : Notification 01/2025 outlines appointments and roles of Central Excise Officers for handling appeals under the Excise Act, specify...
Excise Duty : The Ministry of Finance rescinds Central Excise Notification No. 08/2022 with immediate effect under public interest provisions....
Excise Duty : The Ministry of Finance amends Central Excise Rules, 2017, removing specific provisos in Rules 18 and 19. Changes take effect imme...
Excise Duty : The Ministry of Finance rescinds Central Excise Notifications No. 10/2022 and 11/2022 under Notification No. 30/2024, effective im...
Comfort Polymers Pvt. Ltd. wins the case against CCE- Jammu at CESTAT Chandigarh. CENVAT credit on destroyed goods is allowed as per Rule 3(5B) and 3(5C) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CESTAT Chandigarh sets aside penalty and interest imposed on Punj Brothers Limited for non-payment of customs duty on clearance of goods, citing limitation and lack of mutuality of interest between the parties. The case involved related party transactions and application of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000.
In the case of Rajasthan Syntex Limited vs. Commissioner (CESTAT Delhi), the issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to interest for the intervening period when the rebate claim, which was retained by the Adjudicating Authority illegally, was ultimately sanctioned.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence. Hence, demand unsustained.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that Section 35FF of the Excise Act indicates that interest would commence from the date of the order of the Appellate Authority as distinct from the making of an application which is prescribed to be the starting point insofar as Section 11BB of the Act is concerned.
CESTAT Bangalore held that with effect from 01.03.2005 branded jewellery are chargeable to excise duty @2%. However, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked in absence of establishment of allegation of wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty.
CESTAT Chennai held that the appellant was eligible to clear rough castings to their sister concern on payment of duty on the assessable value based on comparable prices of goods cleared by them to non-related buyers. Provisions of rule 8 of CVR 2000 applicable only w.e.f. 01.12.2003 after amendment by notification no. 14/2012-CE (NT) dated 22.12.2003.
Delhi High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable in matter rejection of licence for Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) as statutory provision which permits the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority in terms of section 72 of the Excise Act, 2009.
CESTAT Kolkata held that activity undertaken by the appellant as calibration tests and upgradation/configuration of the appliances according to the requirements/specifications of the customers, does not amount to manufacture as no new product came into existence.
CESTAT Chandigarh remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh re-consideration as cross-examination to key witnesses was not allowed.
