Interest and penalty under s.11AA, s.11A and rr.14, 6, 15(1) quashed after valid CENVAT reversal

Excise demand fails as s.14 statements hit by s.9D, uncertified s.36B computer printouts lack evidentiary value

Education cesses not transitional credit under Section 140(1); time-barred refunds under Sections 11B CEA and 142(3) CGST.

Refund on export of exempt goods allowed in cash under Section 11B read with Rule 18, interest clarified

CESTAT quashes excise duty demands on tile makers for lack of evidence and non-compliance with Section 9D

SEZ Act Sections 26 and 51 override excise demands; Section 11A duty, 11AC penalties on DTA supplies quashed

ISD allocation of CENVAT/ITC upheld under Rule 7; technical invoice defects and ledger use insufficient to deny credit

Penalty under Rule 26(2) quashed where no proof of pecuniary benefit, document abetment, or corroborated testimony

Appeal allowed: armoured special-purpose vehicles classed under tariff item 8705 90 00, Rule 10A valuation rejected

Corrugated boxes classified under tariff 4819 1010; associated rolls, stiffeners and liners treated as parts under 4819 1090

Deeming provisions under Section 4(3)(b) and Rule 9 inapplicable; Rule 10A job-work valuation overturned, duty demand set aside

Appeal allowed; interest on deposits must follow Sections 35F/35FF and Section 11BB, pre-deposit treatment upheld

Revenue appeal dismissed; goods classed as "paper bidi" under subheading 2403.19.29 based on packaging and labeling

Remand for fresh adjudication on rebate under r.18 CER 2002, parity of BED/NCCD, s.142(4) CGST issues

Appellant's micro-nutrient product classified as 'other fertilizer' under Chapter Note 6 and CETH 3105, not 3808

Assembled on-site CKD steam plant is immovable, not excisable; bought-out items excluded from assessable value under Section 11A(1)

Demand set aside: extended limitation cannot sustain 01.05.2003-30.09.2004; Rule 9 misapplied without s.4(3)(b)(ii)-(iv) findings and Rule 10 mandates...

Revenue evidence rejected for failing statutory certification under s.36B CEA 1944; digital and physical proof lacked admissible value

Testing samples were bona fide, not clandestine removal; courier weight variances not proof; Rule 4 of 2004 permits re-crediting CENVAT

Appellant allowed to claim Notification No.20/2007-CE refunds despite inadvertent filing under Notification No.56/2003-CE as revenue did not dispute e...