Sales by EOU in DTA without permission of Development Commissioner are to be assessed under Section 3 (1) of Central Excise Act,1944 - Sarla Performance Fibers Ltd V CCE - 2016 TIOL 82 SC CX.
Any statement made before Central Excise Officer would be admissible in evidence only by following procedure specified under Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Ambika International V UOI - 2016 TIOL 1238 HC P&H CX.
Tribunal has no discretion to reject but admit appeals where amount of lis is below two lakhs if dispute pertains to rate of duty or valuation - Roots Multiclean Ltd V CESTAT - 2016 336 ELT 25 Mad.
When manufacturer is located in one State and adjudicating and appellate authorities are in different State, writ challenging validity of order is to be filed at location of such original and appellate authority - Adani Power Limited V UOI - 2016 336 ELT 297 (Guj.)
Issuance of corrigendum to show cause notice by investigating agency after settlement application had been admitted is not sustainable being contrary to statutory provisions - Amit Sirohi V DRI, New Delhi - 2016 336 ELT 201 (Del.)
Absence of allegation of fraud, collusion etc in show cause notice issued prior to 11.05.2001 under Section 11AB cannot be set right by subsequent communication referring to amended section 11AB - Archana Spinners Ltd V Deputy Commr of CE - 2016 336 ELT 45 Mad.
High Court directs appropriation of excise duty paid under service tax accounting code by mistake towards excise duty payment - Falah Steel V UOI - 2016 TIOL 1205 HC AHM CX.
Provision of Section 11B is not attracted to refund of education cess and secondary education cess paid on Oil cess as Oil cess is not duty of excise - Joshi Technologies International V UOI - 2016 TIOL 1240 HC AHM CX.
When an established classification is changed, burden is on Department to adduce proper evidence to justify change - Sanwar Agarwal Vs. Commr.of Customs - 2016 336 ELT 42 (Cal.).