Interest payable @6% per annum from date of deposit till date of payment in respect of refund of amount paid by way of deposit paid during investigation - CCE, Chennai-II Vs UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd - 2014 (306) ELT 26 (Mad).

 Whenever, any issue is decided by the Supreme Court or/and High Court then it has to be first referred by the Authorities/Tribunals and then decision should be rendered on the issue involved - CCE Vs Advani Oerlikon Ltd - 2014 (306) ELT 66 (Chhattisgarh).

 Once proceedings against the firm stand concluded, penalty proceedings against partners of the firm cannot continue under Rule 26 - CCE,Chandigarh-I Vs Vikas Garg - 2014 (306) ELT 94 (P&H).

 Goods, even if are not confiscated or not have been rendered liable for confiscation, while indulging into any of the activities concerning such goods, provisions of Rule 26 would be attracted - Sanjay Vimalbhai Deora Vs CESTAT - 2014 (306) ELT 533 (Guj).

 Settlement Commission is required to pass appropriate order under Section 32F(5) of the Act and determine the amount of duty, interest, fine and penalty on the issue which is not accepted by the petitioner after following due procedure as required under Section 32F(3) to 32F(5) of the Act - Mann Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs UOI - 2014 TIOL 1310 HC AHM CX.

 Finance Act, 1994 itself does not authorise a general audit of the type envisioned by the impugned Rule 5A(2) instead stipulates a special audit as per Section 72A. CBEC Circular F. No. 137/26/2007-CX.4 dated 1.1.2008 is patently contrary to the statute - Travelite (India) Vs UOI & Ors - 2014 TIOL 1304 HC DEL ST.

 Cement cleared to industrial/institutional consumers in 50 kg bags are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006 - M/s Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd Vs CCE, Raigad - 2014 TIOL 1433 CESTAT MUM.

 Demand based mainly on the evidence of power consumption without any evidence of clandestine removal set aside by majority view - SRJ Peety Steels Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs CCE, Aurangabad - 2014 TIOL 1530 CESTAT MUM.

 Provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 will not apply to by-products arising in the course of manufacture - Sahakar Shiromani Vasantrao Kale Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd Vs CCE, Pune-III - 2014 TIOL 1498 CESTAT MUM.

 Provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 2000 would be applicable only when the entire production of a particular commodity is captively consumed - M/s U.P Filament (India) Vs CCE, Ghaziabad- 2014 TIOL 1568 CESTAT DEL.

 Subsidy received by fertilizer Company from Government cannot be considered as an additional consideration and not includible in assessable value in accordance with the guidelines issued by Board vide Circular no.983/7/2014-CX dated 10.7.14 - M/s Coromandel International Limited Vs Commissioner of CCE, Visakhapatnam-I - 2014 TIOL 1553 CESTAT BANG.

 Even if the service tax liability has been discharged by the recipient of the service, that cannot compensate for the payment required to be made by the appellant nor does it obliterate the liability to pay service tax by the appellant - Janata Sahakari Bank Limited Vs CCE, Pune-III - 2014 TIOL 1497 CESTAT MUM.

 Consignment note is mandatory to constitute GTA. - South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur - 2014 TIOL 1554 CESTAT DEL.

 The purpose of Section 66A is for taxing the import of services and not for taxing monetary transactions between the branch and head-office - KPIT Technologies Ltd. Vs CCE, Pune-I - 2014 TIOL 1529 CESTAT MUM.