Provision regarding refund of duty under Central Excise is not limited to immediate buyer but can be claimed by ultimate buyer on proof of incidence of such duty not being passed on to any other person - CCE V Addison & Co.Ltd - 2016 339 ELT 177 S.C.
Once assessee entitled to rebate in terms of Circular No.687, no discretion vested with sanctioning authority to refund duty through credit accounts – CCE V Auto Weaving Mills - 2016 TIOL 2336 HC HP CX.
Any statement before Central Excise Officer can be taken in evidence only after following procedure as prescribed under Section 9D (1) (b) of Central Excise Act - G Tech Industries V UOI - 2016 339 ELT 209 (P &H).
High Court exercising writ jurisdiction , will not act as if it is a Second Appellate Authority over the orders passed by the Settlement Commission, in the absence of any perversity in the order - CCE V Thyseenkrupp JBM Pvt Ltd - 2016 TIOL 2247 HC MAD CX.
In view of amendment provision to Sec.35F CEA, wherever appeals dismissed for failure to deposit amounts to tune of 25% to 50%, appeals are directed to be restored on pre-deposit of 15% of demand amount – Puri Brothers V CCE, Jaipur-I - 2016 (339) ELT 352 (RAJ).
Interest under Section 11AA of Central Excise Act is applicable in cases where liability to pay duty arose before or after the introduction of section 11AA but determination took place after the said date - Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Company Ltd V UOI - 2016 TIOL 2393 HC AHM CX.
Highcourt restores appeal which was dismissed for reason of delay in making predeposit on ground that statutory right of appeal cannot be made redundant by dismissal of application for condonation of delay - Satackline sustems Pvt Ltd V Commr of customs and Central Excise - 2016 TIOL 2369 HC AP CX.
There is no manufacture in cutting of TMT coils to TMT bars inspite of being value addition and final product being classifiable under a different heading than raw material - CCE V Castings India Inc - 2016 TIOL 2327 HC JHARKHAND CX.
CESTAT is empowered to reduce penalty specified under section 11AC as per third proviso to Section 11AC as amended - CCE V Crafts Interiors Pvt Ltd - 2016 TIOL 2229 HC AP CX.
Order rejecting compounding application is not an administrative order but proper quasi judicial adjudication order and is hence appealable - CCE V Girish B Mishra 2016 339 ELT 67 (Guj.).