Refund of SAD not subject to condition of mentioning Bill of Entry number in sale invoice - Commr of Customs vs Shri Ram Impex India Pvt Ltd - 2014-TIOL-01-CESTAT-MAD.
Merchant Exporter who procures the goods from the open market is entitled only for the benefit of All Industry Rate of Duty Drawback of Customs allocation only - Ambition Creations vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-129-CESTAT-DEL.
Indirect supplies of goods as stores for consumption on board a vessel are not eligible for exemption under Notification No.64/95-CE - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-149-CESTAT-MUM.
Review order by Committee of Commissioners not sustainable when there is no application of mind and that the committee has merely appended their signature to note sheets prepared by subordinate officers - CCE vs Honda Motorcycle & Scooters India Pvt Ltd - 2014-TIOL-83-CESTAT-DEL.
The 'relevant date' as given in clause (a) of Explanation B to Section 11B in respect of export rebate claims, cannot be applied to Rule 5 refund claims - Deepak Spinners Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-63-CESTAT-DEL.
Even if the Transporter has paid ST the appellant is eligible to take CENVAT credit on GTA - Rucha Engineers Pvt Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-54-CESTAT-MUM.
Credit cannot be distributed under ISD scheme to jobworker's factory - Subell Alloys Co of India Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-38-CESTAT-MUM.
Stock transfers by EOU to its units are eligible for benefit of SAD exemption - VVF Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-04-CESTAT-MUM.
For arriving at “normal transaction value” of ‘greatest aggregate quantity’ when goods are sold from different depots, what is to be taken is value at a particular depot from where goods are sold and not values prevalent at other depots - Hindustan Petroleum Corpn Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai-I - 2014-TIOL-20-CESTAT-MUM.
Cenvat credit is not required to be reversed even if the activity of cutting and slitting of Jumbo Rolls of aluminium film does not amount to manufacture as duty has been paid - Commissioner Of Central Excise, Pune-I Vs Associated Capsules Ltd - 2014-TIOL-28-CESTAT-MUM.
Subsequent reduction in prices by passing on higher discounts to the customers after the clearance of the goods cannot alter the excise duty liability - M/s Videocon International Ltd Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Aurangabad - 2014-TIOL-50-CESTAT-MUM.
Activity of affixing details as brand name, MRP, size of the shoes, colour of the shoes, etc on shoes received in loose form and re-packed in cardboard boxes is manufacture as the footwear is a specified commodity in the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Amin Virji Imran Virji Vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai-I - 2014-TIOL-84-CESTAT-MUM.
Promotional products given free of cost is to be valued for excise duty under Rule 4 of Excise Valuation Rules - L’oreal India Private Ltd vs CCE - 2014-TIOL-78-CESTAT-MUM.