Cestat judgments - Page 103

NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (CESTAT MUMBAI)

Nicholas Piramel (I) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Mumbai)

NICHOLAS PIRAMEL (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THANE-I- The provisions of Rules 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are not applicable when the amount equivalent of the Cenvat Credit attributable to the common inputs used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of exempted final products has been paid prior to the re...

Read More

Bosch Chassis Systems India Ltd. vs. C.C.E.- Cestat Delhi

M/s Bosch Chasssis Systems India Ltd Vs. C.C.E., Delhi III (CESTAT New Delhi)

Whether the assessee is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of supplementary invoice of the manufacturer in case additional duty of excise is paid suo motu on receipt of the show cause notice alleging wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules with intent...

Read More

Employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service

CCE, Mumbai-V Vs M/s GTC Industries Ltd (CESTAT Mumbai larger bench)

Employment of outdoor caterer for providing catering services has to be considered as an input service relating to the business and cenvat credit in respect of the same will be admissible. ...

Read More

Penalty u/s. 11AC r.w. Rule 25 cannot be imposed for suppression or contravention of facts unless it was made intentionally

CC&CE, Kanpur Vs. M/s Beekay Enterprises (CESTAT Delhi)

CC&CE Vs. Beekay Enterprises (CESTAT Delhi) - Penalty can be imposed within the framework of Section 11AC of the Act. Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules which deals with penalty also can be applied subject to provisions of Section 11AC. As indicated above, penalty can be imposed when non payment or short payment of duty etc. was actuat...

Read More

Excise – Expenses incurred on account of reimbursable expenses shall not form part of the value of the taxable services

Reliance Industries Limited Vs. C.C.E. (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

We also find that the Board vide its Service Tax instructions F.No.B..43/5/97-TRU, dated 2.7.97 held in para 3.5 that the expenses incurred on account of reimbursable expenses shall not form part of the value of the taxable services. To the same effect is another instruction being Service Tax F.No.B11/98-TRU, dated 7.10.98....

Read More

Minimum penalty to be imposed under Central Excise Rules, 2002

CCE, Bhopal Vs M/s. Rama Wood Craft (P) Ltd. (CESTAT New Delhi)

Even where a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority has discretion to impose a lesser penalty depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The amount mentioned in Rule 173Q(1) of the 1944 Rules or Rule 25(1) of the 2002 Rules is the maximum, and not the minimum. The amount shall not exceed the duty determined; if it is more...

Read More

SCN issued after six months from search date and even after completion of investigations is barred by limitation

Commissioner of Central Excise., Ahmedabad -I Vs Nandeshwari Packaging (CESTAT Ahmedabad West Zonal Bench)

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Nandeshwari Packaging (Cestat Ahemdabad)- Show cause notice issued on 9-7-2004 is barred by limitation, inasmuch as, the same stands issued after the period of six months from the date of search and even after completion of the investigations. ...

Read More

SCN for recovery of erroneous refund without reviewing refund order is valid

the process of review under Section 35E of the Act could be resorted to for challenging the refund sanction orders passed pursuant to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund sanction orders of the original authority were only consequential to the order of the appellate authority and any process of review should have bee...

Read More
Posted Under: Excise Duty |

Cenvat credit availed during the period 01/01/2005 to 15/06/2005 on the basis of TR-6 challans, which were used for payment of Service Tax on the services received from GTA, is admissible

Puja Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa (CESTAT Mumbai - Court No. II)

TR-6 challan is the most primary document evidencing payment of duty/tax. No doubt the TR-6 challan was not included in the list of specified documents. It was included by virtue of Notification No.28/2005-CE(NT) dated 7/6/2005. I find that this is an inadvertent omission, which was rectified by issuing the said Notification. This is so b...

Read More

J & K exemption – education cess also to be refunded : Tribunal

It is evident that when the exempted amount of duty was required to be refunded for operationalising the exemption, Education Cess, which was in the nature of piggy back duty on the excise duties under the said three Acts, was also required to be refunded, because it was not at all leviable, in view of the entitlement to exemption worked ...

Read More
Posted Under: Excise Duty |

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,375)
Company Law (5,170)
Custom Duty (7,494)
DGFT (4,051)
Excise Duty (4,279)
Fema / RBI (3,902)
Finance (4,053)
Income Tax (31,258)
SEBI (3,249)
Service Tax (3,483)

Search Posts by Date

December 2019
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031