Excise case laws

Central Excise - SHALIMAR WIRES INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., KOLKATA-IV = 2008

Date of Decision: June 11, 2008 - CESTAT KOLKATAWoven greig fabric produced during the manufacture of FWC - Demand raised is in respect of heat treated fabric, before it is processed into FWC - Leviability of basic excise duty under the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act, 1957 – held that duty is leviable unless goods are specifically exempted – revenue has not proved marketability of intermediate product - matter remanded to re-determine the marketability of product

Central Excise - BRAKES INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-III = 2008 Date of Decision: June 5, 2008 - CESTAT NEW DELHIValuation of goods which are transferred inter-units - goods cleared were assessed on provisional basis, paying higher amount of duty - appellant adopted a higher profit margin of 30% - appellant explained this adoption of higher margin only to take care of value fluctuation in respect of inputs which have gone into the manufacture of the goods cleared from their Chennai units – since there is no allegation of fraud, whatever duty paid is taken as credit by another unit, credit is not deniable
Central Excise - HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BELGAUM = 2008

of Decision: May 22, 2008 - CESTAT BANGLORESteel plates and strips used in mfg. of capital goods (steel tanks) – in view of Explanation 2 in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, impugned goods can be treated as inputs because these goods are used in the manufacture of tanks falling under Chapter 84, which is specifically mentioned in the definition of capital goods – credit cannot be denied merely for the fact that steel tank are exempted under Notification No. 67/95
Central Excise - COROMANDAL PAINTS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & CUS., VISAKHAPATNAM-I = 2008

Date of Decision: May 16, 2008 - CESTAT BANGLORESupervision expenditure by buyer to ensure the correct quality - issue involved is whether the expenditure incurred by the buyer is to be included in the assessable value – impugned expenses are not incurred on behalf of manufacturer - department proceeded against the appellants holding that they are includible – action of department is not acceptable – appeal of assessee is allowed