Excise Judgements

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not interfered with the factual aspects which were recorded by the Settlement Commission in its judgment. However, the High Court has stated the correct legal position where the Settlement Commissio

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi held that Rule 19 of the Excise Rules permits export of the goods under bond/ Letter of Undertaking (LUT) without payment of duty, subject to following the procedure and conditions as may be prescribed. The Notification issu

The Hon’ble Apex Court held that it is clear that by letter dated April 15, 2002, the original purchase order dated October 31, 2001 was novated insofar as price was concerned, which is before the date of removal of goods from the factory premises in

The Exemption Notification exempted goods falling under Heading 87.03 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and consequently, duty payable was 40%. However, proviso to the Exemption Notification gives exemption of duty of 10% to the manufacturer of

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal in favour of the Revenue by setting aside the decision the Hon’ble Tribunal and held that Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment will be applicable in case of refund of duty paid on Capital goods, which are used ca

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2004 (7) TMI 98] which was based on the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wi

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Ahmedabad relying upon the decision in the Ranbaxy Laboratory case held that under Section 11BB of the Excise Act, there is no provision that relevant date for determining the rate of interest will be postponed in any eventuality.

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Delhi after observing that the Abu Road unit had reversed the Cenvat credit taken to the extent of refund filed, held that although Satnoor unit had cleared Intermediate Products on payment of Excise duty, wherein the price of Int

The Hon’ble High Court held that the law provides that in the event, amount is not paid within a specified time, then, the Department will have to pay interest, unless and until, the Department had received any preventive or prohibitory order and dir

The Hon’ble CESTAT, Mumbai relied upon the following case laws: · CCE Surat-III Vs. Creative Enterprises [2009 (235) ELT 0785 (Guj.)] further, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [2009 (243) ELT A 120 (SC)] · CCE, Pune-III Vs. Ajinkya E