When DGFT notification does not prescribe any cap on duty credit granted under Incremental Export Incentivisation Scheme, Circular bringing in such a cap is arbitrary and is liable to be struck down - JSW Steel Ltd V UOI - 2016 334 ELT 222 (Bom.)
High Court declares clause (g) of SSI Notification which provides for treating clearance to Nepal as home clearance unconstitutional in absence of any amendment to the clause after 01.03.2012 from when onwards clearance to Nepal is on par with Clearance for export to other countries - Ketan Pottery Works V UOI - 2016 334 ELT 206 (Guj.)
Explanation to Section 32-O providing that concealment of particulars would mean concealment of duty liability from central excise officer is clarificatory in nature and would apply to cases where Settlement commission chose not to entertain petition of assesee who had been imposed with penalty during previous periods when explanation was not inserted - CCE V Rohit Ferro Tech Ltd - 2016 334 ELT 402 Cal.
When an assessee opts for settlement, he cannot turn back and challenge order of penalty passed in order of settlement as order of penalty cannot be segregated from the whole order which attained finality - CCE V Vedanta Aluminium Ltd - 2016 TIOL 763 HC KOL CX.
High Court directs Revenue to adjust excise duty amount paid under service tax code towards excise duty liability of the month - TS-189-HC-2016 (GUJ) - EXC.
Exemption under Notification 108/95 cannot be denied on ground of supply of goods to individual contractors executing projects funded by international organisations - CCE V CESTAT - 2016 TIOL 764 HC MAD CX.
Credit of duties paid on packing materials can be availed even without actually packing finished product with such packing material - Nilkamal Ltd V CESTAT - 2016 TIOL 861 HC MAD CX.
Department cannot take advantage of the amendment to Section 11AB with effect from 11.5.2001 in relation to the show cause notices that emanated before said date - Archana Spinners Ltd V Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise - 2016 TIOL 872 HC MAD CX.
CESTAT orders passed beyond time limit of 6 months as prescribed under CESTAT Order No.4 dated 17.07.2009 is non est - Magma Fincorp Ltd V UOI - 2016 334 ELT 394 (Cal.)
Date of knowledge of misdeclaration in one bill of entry cannot be a bar in invoking extended period for similar misdeclaration in different bill of entry - Maldhari Sales Corporation V UOI - 2016 334 ELT 418 (Del.)