LIPI BOILERS LTD. THROUGH ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944? E. ANALYSIS (I). Whether the value of the duty paid bought out items delivered directly at the buyer’s site is liable to be included in the value of the boiler cleared by the assessee from its factory in completely knocked down (CKD) condition, for the assessment of central excise duty

M/S. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. vs. COMNR. OF CUSTOMS

Appeals are dismissed but in

price. The concept that it is only chattel sold as chattel, which can be regarded as goods has no role to play in the present statutory scheme as we have already observed that the words goods as defined under the Customs Act has an inclusive definition taking within its ambit an immovable property. The list of goods as prescribed

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

price is the sole consideration for the sale:” (4) For the purposes of this section, - (a) “assessee” means the person who is liable to pay the duty of excise under this Act and includes his agent;” 11. Recovery of sums due to Government. - In respect of duty and any other sums of any kind payable to the Central Government under

M/S. PUROLATOR INDIA LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III

Appeal is disposed of accordingly

transfers, the appellant filed declarations under Rule 173C with the excise department. In these declarations, the appellant claimed deduction towards Sales Tax, Cash Discount and Volume Discount on excise duty payable to arrive at the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. 3. Apart from undertaking manufacturing activities, the appellant at times also receives

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND C.E.NAGPUR vs. M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD

11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by invoking extended period of limitation of five years. (iii) I impose Penalty of Rs.2,43,31,003/- (Rs. Two Crores Forty Three Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Three only), upon them under Rule 173Q and 9(2) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise

COMMISSIONER OF CENTAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX ROHTAK vs. M/S. MERINO PANEL PRODUCT LTD

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

11A. Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded.- (1) Where any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, for any reason, other than the reason of fraud or collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts

M/S. PAHWA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI

The Appeals stand dismissed

price should be examined in the light of the various CEGAT decisions available on this subject." Aggrieved by the directions given, the Appellants filed an Appeal. CEGAT by its Order dated 19th July, 2001 held that the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have remitted the matter back with the above directions and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter

M/S DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL vs. COMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

transferred the compound (kimam). The said enquiries indicated receipt of the said compound (kimam) in balties at Barotiwala during the period 16.2.1995 to 20.12.1996. Based on the above investigations carried out by the department, it appeared that the compound (kimam) was excisable and had been manufactured and cleared without http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8 obtaining

COMMNR.,CUSTOMS & CENT.EXCISE AURANGABAD vs. M/S. ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeal is allowed restoring the order passed by the Adjudicating

11A(1) of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1994 and Civil Appeal No. 5541 of 2004 Page 2 of 15 Page 3 JUDGMENT why penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB should not be imposed. The assessee replied and was given personal hearing. Learned Adjudicating authority vide its order

M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Companies Act. It Undertook A Contract For Construction Of Bridges For M/S. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. (’Konkan Railway’, For Short), Which Is A Public Sector Undertaking. Appellant Manufactured Pre Stressed Concrete Girders (Psc Girders). It Used To Transport Them To The Site Of Construction Of Bridges Of The Railways. It Did Not Register Itself With The Authorities Of The Central Excise. 2. Alleging That The Appellant, For The Period March 1993 & December 1994, Although Was Involved In The Manufacturing Activity, By Undertaking Manufacture Of 75 Psc Girders, But Did Not Pay Any Excise Duty Thereupon. 3. A Notice Was Issued To The Appellant Directing It To Show Cause As To Why Central Excise Duty To The Tune Of Rs.32,35,575/- Should Not Be Demanded & Recovered From Them In Terms Of The Proviso Appended To Rule 49(1) Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (Rules) Read With Section 11A Of The Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (Act) & As To Why Penalty Should Not Be Imposed On Them & The Plant & Machinery & The Manufactured Goods Should Not Be Confiscated. Cause Was Shown By The Appellant Inter Alia Stating That No Excise Duty Was Payable. The Said Notice Was Withdrawn Stating: "The Said Show Cause Notice Has Been Issued Without Obtaining Approval Of The Proper Authority Or By The Proper Officer. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice Dated 27.1.94 Hereby Withdrawn.

transfer of trade mark to the appellants" discloses that the Tribunal accepted that there has been an assignment but proceeded to deal with the case of inapplicability of the exemption under the notification on the ground that the logo was being used by M/s. P & B Laboratories also. We have already indicated above that use of logo of the manufacturer

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR vs. M/S. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD

price of exempted final product at the time of removal for sale. In the circumstances, the Tribunal erred in holding that Rule 57CC is not applicable to the present case as it involves stock transfer and not a sale. If the view of the Tribunal is to be accepted, then neither Section 4 of the 1944 Act nor the Valuation

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

transferred to its depot in Surat for sale therefrom; that in the said price declaration, the assessee had indicated variety-wise ex-depot sale price, amount of various deductions for sales tax, freight, discount, TOT, excise duty etc.; that in the price declaration, the assessee had also declared the assessable http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR vs. M/S. SUPER SYNOTEX (INDIA) LTD.

In the result, both sets of appeals stand disposed of

11A, 11AC and 11AB of the Act and further imposed penalty on the persons responsible for the said suppression and evasion. 6. Being grieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur, the assessee preferred three appeals, namely, Appeal NO. E/2279-2281 of 2002. The Tribunal posed the question whether the assessee was entitled to claim deduction under

COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS vs. M/S.RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue are

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

transfer of advance licenses held by the customers constituted additional consideration flowing to the assessee from such customers.  5. Since the demand for differential duty was being raised on 28.9.2005, which was beyond the normal limitation period of one year prescribed in Section 11A(1) of the Act, the show cause notice also alleged that the noticee had deliberately suppressed

NIRLON LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed in part and disposed of in the

transferred to Tarapur factory were using identical raw materials and identical process. For this reason, the appellant believed that the products were comparable goods in terms of Rule 6(b)(i). (ii) Both the goods fall under the same sub-heading of the tariff entry as both are admittedly TCY. (iii) The price list which was filed by the appellant

M/S. AMCO BATTERIES LTD., BANGALORE vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

In the result, Section 33-B of the Amended Act is held to be

11A (1) of the Act. This has been made clear repeatedly by this Court. In M/s Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore [(1989) 4 SCC 275] this Court has held that something positive other than mere inaction or failure on the part of the manufacturer or producer of conscious or deliberate withholding of information when the manufacturer knew

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI vs. M/S. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS INDIA LTD

Appeal stands allowed

transferred to Consumer Welfare Fund. By judgment and order dated 31.10.1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner refund was granted to M/s Allied Photographics India (P) Ltd. (M/s APIL). This order of Assistant Commissioner was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 13.6.2000 and the Department was directed to refund Rs.1

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S NESTLE INDIA LTD

transferred only to two sister concerns and no sale is involved, the assessable value of instant tea removed to the respondent’s own units would be determined on the basis of the export price of similar goods and not 115% of the cost of production. 2 Page 3 JUDGMENT 3. The order in original dated 31.5.2006 passed by the Additional