'Cheeselings' By Parle-G Classified As 'Namkeen', Exempt From Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that 'Cheeselings' by Parle-G is 'namkeen' which is exempted from the excise duty under S. No. 29 of the Notification No. 3/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006. The Bench of C J Mathew (Technical Member) and Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) has observed that “'Namkeen' has not been defined either contextually in the notification or as a separate nomenclature in the tariff. Therefore, the...

Factory Closed Due To Unavoidable Circumstances Not Liable For Excise Duty: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that if a factory is closed due to unavoidable circumstances, it is not liable to pay excise duty. The Bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that “the closure of the factory was not on the choice of the assessee whereas, they were compelled to keep the factory closed as per the direction of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Therefore, closing of the...

Panchnama Not To Be Treated As Certificate Required For Admitting Printouts From Personal Computer As Evidence: CESTAT

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that a panchnama cannot be treated as a certificate required under Section 36B(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for admitting printouts from a personal computer as evidence. The Bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that “the CPU did not contain the hard disk. The hard disk was in fact picked up from the corner of the room. No ...

Assessee Failed To Explain Huge Variation In Stock And Admitted To Shortage: CESTAT Upholds Penalty Under Section 11 AC(1)(A) Of The Central Excise Act, 1944

The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the assessee has failed to explain the huge variation in stock and has admitted to the shortage, making them liable under Section 11AC(1)(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11 AC(1)(A) Of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that if any excise duty has not been levied, paid, short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded due to fraud, collusion, willful misstatement,...

SEZ Unit In India Is A Territory Deemed To Be Outside India, No Excise Duty Payable On Manufacturing Goods: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the SEZ Act exempts all duties in respect of the goods manufactured in the Special Economic Zones (SEZ). The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that since the SEZ unit has been excluded from the levy of the duty of excise, the same exclusion shall apply in respect of the levy of Special Additional Excise Duty (SAED) and Additional Duty of Excise (AED)....

Direction For Payment Of Mandatory Pre-deposit Doesn't Constitute 'Order' Within Meaning Of Sec 35G of Central Excise Act: Calcutta High Court

Taking note of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, the Calcutta High Court clarified that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from “every order” passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, though the maintainability thereof would be dependent on certain statutory limitations. As per Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the 1st day of July, 2003 (not being an order...

Penalty Under Central Excise Rules Can Only Be Imposed On Natural Person And Not Against Artificial Entity: CESTAT

The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the penalty under central excise rules can only be imposed on natural persons and not against artificial entities.The bench of Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Raju (Technical Member) has observed that the department has filed an appeal only against M/s Richardson and Cruddas Limited, and no name of the appellant or assessee appeared on the appeal memo. Obviously, when the appellant was not made a...

Gauhati High Court Directs Assistant Commissioner To Release Amount Of Interest On Delayed Excise Duty Refund To GAIL

The Gauhati High Court has directed that assistant commissioner to release the amount of interest on delayed excise duty refund to GAIL India.The bench of Justice Devashis Baruah has observed that the Division Bench writ petition, while disposing of the writ petition, held that Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not exclude a claim of refund made in terms of the notification dated 08.07.1999. The Division Bench observed and directed that the petitioners would be entitled to interest...

Manufacturing Of Aircrafts Parts Covered Under “Engineering Goods”, No Excise Duty Payable: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that excise duty exemption is available on the manufacturing of aircraft parts.The bench of Sulekha Beevi.C.S. (Judicial Member) and Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical Member) have observed that the engineering equipment would fall within the items that have been listed for exemption as per Notification No.10/97. The Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the very same issue and allowed the exemption, observing that the goods...

Chewing Tobacco Packed In High-Density Polyethylene Bags Are 'Wholesale Package'; Cannot Be Taxed As Retail Product Under Excise Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that pouches of chewing tobacco packed in High-Density Polyethylene (HDPE) bags would be considered a 'wholesale package' and could not be considered for imposing excise duty as per the provisions relating to retail sale price in the Central Excise Act, 1944.The bench of Justices AS Oka and Pankaj Mithal upheld the decision of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal which observed that chewing tobacco in HDPEs qualified as wholesale packages as they were sold only...

Black Sand Not A By-Product, Just A Waste; CESTAT Quashes Excise Duty

The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has clearly erred in fastening the appellant with duty liability on black sand, which was not manufactured. The bench of P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) and M. Ajit Kumar (Technical Member) relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Board of Trustees vs. Collector of Central Excise, in which it was held that in order to constitute goods, twin tests have to be satisfied, namely, the process constituting...

[Central Excise Act] Fixing Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Very Short Notice Violative of Opportunity of Hearing U/S 33A: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing within the period of a week would be violative of the opportunity of hearing as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.Section 33A of the Central Excise Act provides that opportunity of hearing be given to a party in a proceeding under the Act, if desired by them. Further, it lays down the procedure for granting adjournment in adjudication proceedings to either of the parties on the condition that a...