Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) charges and free After Sale Service (ASS) charges would not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Act for the purposes of paying excise duty - Commissioner of Central Excise, Mysore vs TVS Motor Company Ltd. - 2015 TIOL 299 SC CX.

 Process of cold-rolling of hot-rolled stainless steel patta / pattis on job-work basis constitutes ‘manufacture’ u/s 2(f) of Central Excise Act - M/s Gujarat Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - I - TS 683 SC 2015 EXC.

 Amount of excise duty paid under wrong assessee code is to be considered as valid payments - Devang Paper Mills Ltd vs UOI - 2016 TIOL 37 HC AHM CX.

 Demand of penalty under Rules 96 ZO, 96 ZP and 96 ZQ of the Central Excise Rules were ultra vires Central Excise Act, 1944, arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India - Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills vs Commr. of Central Excise - 2015 326 E.L.T. 209 SC.

 Declaration made under VCES by seeking adjustment of tax already paid under audit paras conducted during the period when VCES scheme was in existence and adjustment of amount paid as interest / penalty during audit by changing the accounting code appropriately towards tax dues held to be valid - Ask Me Enterprises vs UOI - 2015 40 STR 1041 GUJ.

 As far as the CE Act is concerned, there is no such provision that raises a presumption and shifts the burden on to the person who is charged with clandestine removal of excisable goods - Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I vs Vishnu & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors - 2015 TIOL 2792 HC DEL CX.

 If one receives a service from a person and also provides a service to the same person, the service tax is payable on both the transactions independently and cannot be set off between the value of service provided against the value of service availed - DHL vs CCE, Mumbai-II - 2015 TIOL 2695 CESTAT MUM.

 Section 129A (2) or Section 129D of Customs Act does not empower the Committee of Commissioners to review their own order again and take different view - CC vs Alufit India Pvt Ltd. - 2016 TIOL 57 CESTAT MAD.

 Filing of appeals in respect of rebate on goods supplied to SEZ from DTA within India will be in accordance with the procedure applicable in respect of appeals to be filed in respect of rebate claims on exports to a place outside India - M/s Sai Wardha Power Ltd vs CCE - 2015 TIOL 2823 CESTAT MUM LB.

 The Cenvat Credit Rules do not prohibit availment of cenvat credit in respect of inputs / input services which have been received prior to registration. The Cenvat Credit Rules contain no express restriction on distribution of credit earned prior to taking the registration by the ISD also. Hence the ISD can avail credit of service tax paid on input services received prior to registration - Lona Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad - 2015 TIOL 2694 CESTAT MUM.

 Provisions of Rule 6(3) (b) of CCR become applicable only if manufacturer consciously manufactures dutiable and exempted final product using common Cenvat credit availed inputs and / or input services and does not comply with provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of CCR and would not apply where exempted final product emerges as an unavoidable waste or by-product and compliance with provisions of Rule 6(2) is impossible. – CCE vs Aarti Sponge & Power Ltd - 2015 TIOL 2768 CESTAT DEL.

 Statements recorded initially at the time of visit of officers cannot solely be relied upon to conclude clandestine production and removal in the absence of any corroborative evidence - Confiscation and imposition of penalties unsustainable – CCE, C&ST vs Cubex Tubings Ltd -2015 TIOL 2810 CESTAT BANG.

 SL.No.237 of Notification No.6/2002-CE covers non-conventional energy devices / systems would be available to the chimney - Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-IV vs Rachitech Engineers Pvt Ltd. -2015 326 E.L.T. 377 Tri.-Del.