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...
CESTAT Chennai held that tyres, tubes and flaps secured by plastic carry straps are not placed in a package within the meaning of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. Hence, provisions of section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 inapplicable.
The issue concerned denial of CENVAT credit on services used across multiple units under centralized registration. The Tribunal held that Rule 7 permits distribution of credit subject only to limited conditions and does not restrict usage across units.
The issue was whether indirect export through intermediaries qualifies for exemption. The Supreme Court upheld denial, ruling that direct export is required for excise benefit.
Tribunal examined whether assembly of RLMS units under a turnkey contract constituted manufacture. It held that on-site assembly and integration of components did not result in excisable goods. The ruling clarifies that such project-based activities are not liable to excise duty.
The Tribunal examined whether fund transfers to overseas branches constituted taxable services. It found no evidence of any service being rendered or received in India. The ruling held that mere transfer of funds for operational expenses does not attract service tax.
The Tribunal held that whether conversion of GI wire into barbed wire and mesh amounts to manufacture requires fresh evaluation. It set aside earlier orders due to incomplete analysis. The case was remanded for re-examination of all issues.
The issue was whether post-manufacturing expense deductions on a weighted average basis are admissible. The Tribunal held that earlier rulings in the same case had settled the issue, leading to cancellation of demand and penalties.
The Tribunal held that failure to intimate the Superintendent under Rule 6(3A) does not invalidate proportionate credit reversal. It clarified that such intimation is procedural and not a substantive condition.
The Tribunal found that effective control and possession of tanks rested with customers, excluding the transaction from supply of tangible goods service. The demand was set aside accordingly.
The Court addressed whether appeals could proceed despite low tax effect. It held that since Rule 8(3A) was already struck down and not in issue, appeals were not maintainable.
