Excise Duty : T. T. Recycling Management India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) is a resident Private Limited Company...
Excise Duty : It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PET Chips. The applicant now intends to start a new business whereby the applicant i...
Excise Duty : Nucleus Device is classifiable under Tariff Entry 85176290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Machines...
Excise Duty : The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dism...
Excise Duty : In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that the tag is applied by them while placing the jewellery in the box to preven...
It was held that the Tribunal’s decisions are binding on the lower authorities and cannot be ignored on the sole ground that the Revenue may prefer to file appeal against the same before the higher authorities until and unless the same is set aside by a higher forum.
It was held that when the revenue proceeded to include the value of SEZ exports in computing the total turnover, the same should also have been included in computing export turnover and accordingly the value of export turnover should be equal to the total turnover and the value of SEZ exports should be included in the export turnover (numerator).
Once partnership firm penalized, separate penalty not imposable upon partner of the firm because the partner is not a separate legal entity as there is no difference between the partner and the partnership firm.
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.
