Central Excise Rules, 2002

Sansera Engineering Ltd, a manufacturer of excisable goods, exported products in August‑October 2015 and paid excise duty. It claimed rebate of the duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in February 2017, but the claims were rejected as being beyond the one‑year limitation prescribed in Section 11B of the…

M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of soybean meal, claimed a 1% All‑Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback that it had been denied after availing CENVAT benefits. The dispute centered on whether Circular No. 35/2010‑Cus dated 17 September 2010, which clarified that the customs component of the d…

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals by the Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax against CESTAT orders that had remanded assessments of several plywood manufacturers for re‑adjudication. All the cases involved allegations that the assessee had under‑valued their excisable goods, thereby ev…

Mis. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., a motor‑vehicle manufacturer, generated electricity in its plant using naphtha and diesel and sold a portion of the surplus to its joint ventures, vendors and the grid for a price. The company claimed CENVAT credit on the duty paid on the fuel used for electricity generation, arguing that elect…

The appellant, Spentex Industries Ltd., manufactured polyester yarns, paid excise duty on both the raw materials and the finished products, and exported the goods. It claimed rebate of duty on both inputs and final goods under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, filing 45 rebate applications. The Revenue rejecte…

M/s JSW Steel Ltd. manufactured pig iron and HR coil sheets and, in its invoices, added a charitable donation called ‘Dharmada’ which was credited to charity. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, seeking penalty under Rule 25 of the Centra…

Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. operated a composite mill where yarn was spun and grey fabrics were woven but not further processed. Under Notification No. 14/2002‑CE, such grey fabrics are exempt from excise duty (nil rate) provided (i) duty on the yarn input is paid before claiming the exemption and (ii) no CENVAT …

The Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) cleared goods between January 2005 and July 2006 on a price fixed by a circular, later revised retrospectively by an escalation clause, leading SAIL to pay differential excise duty of Rs.142.78 crore. The Commissioner demanded interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act…

JayashwalNECO Ltd., a manufacturer of pig iron, defaulted on excise duty payments, leading the Revenue to withdraw its fortnightly instalment facility under Rule 173G(1)(e) for two months and require payment per consignment by debit to the account current. During this period the assessee used Cenvat Credit to discharge…

Prabir Banerjee, a Group‑B Superintendent in the Central Excise Department, was transferred from the Bhopal zone to the Nagpur Commissionerate under an office order. He challenged the transfer, arguing that circulars dated 19 Feb 2004 and 9 Mar 2004 prohibited inter‑zonal transfers, making the order void. The Central A…

Sandoz Private Limited, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), sought refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) paid by its Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit for goods supplied to the EOU. The Union of India and other respondents contended that the EOU was ab initio exempt from excise duty under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and…

The case concerned the classification of Aswini Homeo Arnica Hair Oil (AHAHO) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – whether it should be taxed as a medicament (Chapter 30) or as a cosmetic/toilet preparation (Chapter 33). The Revenue, relying on the 2012 amendment of the tariff schedule, sought a re‑examination o…

UltraTech Cement Ltd claimed Cenvat credit for service tax paid on outward transportation of cement from its factory to customers' premises during Jan‑Jun 2010. The Revenue argued that such transport service, being beyond the "place of removal", is not an "input service" under Rule 2(l)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, …