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...
The Tribunal examined whether construction and infrastructure activities were taxable under WCS or CRCS. It held that presence of transfer of property in goods justified classification under WCS. The key takeaway is that specific taxable entries override earlier classifications once introduced.
The Tribunal examined whether penalties can continue after the main dispute is settled. It held that co-noticees have no independent liability once the primary demand is resolved. The ruling clarifies the consequential nature of such penalties.
The Tribunal examined whether inputs were received in the factory before availing credit. It found no conclusive evidence supporting the department’s allegation. The key takeaway is that demands cannot be sustained on presumptions.
The Tribunal examined whether waste and scrap from cable manufacturing are excisable. It held that such waste is not “manufactured goods” under law. The key takeaway is that non-manufactured by-products are not liable to duty.
The Tribunal held that distribution of Cenvat credit among units was optional prior to the 2016 amendment. Availing full credit in one unit was found legally valid, leading to the setting aside of the demand.
The department alleged irregular credit distribution under Rule 7. The Tribunal found full disclosure in statutory returns and no mala fide intent. The ruling emphasizes transparency as a defense against extended limitation.
The department argued that credit must be split across units. The Tribunal ruled that Rule 7 allowed discretionary distribution. The decision clarifies the scope of ISD credit rules before amendment.
The issue was whether procedural delays and challan errors could deny SVLDR benefits. The Court held that substantive compliance prevails and relief cannot be denied for technical defects.
The issue was whether valuation should be based on cost under Rule 8 or transaction value. The Tribunal held that Rule 8 does not apply when goods are also sold to independent buyers. The key takeaway is that mixed clearances require valuation under Rule 4, not cost-based valuation.
The issue involved denial of credit due to absence of ISD registration. The Tribunal held that this was a procedural lapse and cannot justify denial of substantive credit.
