it was held that in order to prove clandestine removal of excisable goods, the department should take reasonable steps and provide correlated corroborative evidence to prove that the assessee has made cladenstine removal of goods.
It was held that the Department cannot reject the certificate issued by the competent authority. In case the certificate was obtained by mis-representation or not presenting full facts the only option left to the department is to approach the competent authority with all the evidences to modify/cancel the certificate issued already.
It was held that the unjust enrichment can’t be proved by establishing the source of funds out of which the excise duty has been paid. Further it was held that in the case of State owned Undertakings which are funded, controlled and monitored by the State Government, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not arise.
It was held that CENVAT credit on various items used in the fabrication of capital goods can be availed. In the present case, the assessee provided sufficient evidence to prove the usage of different items in the installation of capital goods.
Tractors having engine capacity less than 1800 CC are not liable to such cess. Appellants are engaged in manufacture of both type of tractors and were using common inputs without maintaining separate accounts for receipt and consumption of these inputs. Invoking the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 proceedings were initiated against the appellant to recover 10% of value of the exempted tractors.
It was held that in case of clandestine clearance of goods, wherein the Revenue has discharged the burden of corroborating, establishing clandestine clearance of dutiable items from the appellant’s unit and wherein the appellant is merely contesting the duty demand and penalty on the ground that the detailed further investigation regarding raw materials procurement, transport of such raw materials etc.
It was held that the assessee should produce corroborative evidence to establish that the inputs/Capital goods are used in the process of manufacturing and accordingly the CENVAT credit should be allowed.
It was held that for claiming the exemption of excise duty on ayurvedic product, there is no condition that the product to be sold exclusively in the name mentioned in the textbooks. The mention of the house name/ brand-name cannot lead to the conclusion that these products are not sold in the name specified in Ayurvedic text and accordingly exemption is applicable.
It was held that the activity of placing various food items, prepared by the appellants as well as various bought out readymade items, in a tray either at the time of placing the tray in the trolley or at the time of serving the passengers on board does not amount to manufacture of a new commodity as contemplated under section 2 (f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and accordingly the excise duty cannot be demanded on the total value of manufactured and bought products placed in the tray.
CESTAT held that tobacco manufactured and packed in small pouches of 6-7 grams and again packed in a bigger packet are not subject to valuation based on retail price as the small pouches weighing less than 10 gms are exempt from requirement of fixation of retail sale price under Rule 34 of the Standards of Weight & Measurement Act.
