New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Canteen Service Provider Payment of Foreign consultancy Service s whether cst to be charged on purchase returns Applicability of Notificaton 218/86 S TAX DEDUCTION Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence IS SALES TAX / VAT APPLICABLE FOR TRANSPORTERS. Clearance of goods to 100% EOU Unit in SEZ under ARE3 -Reg. Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration valuation of goods and ED on scrap
Search in Case Laws

Refine Search / Filter

Case Laws
Text
Search as Search in: -

Filter [Optional]
Include In:
Date From To DD-MM-YYYY
Law - Section [Only for Income Tax]
Court - City
Exclude

OR
TMI Citation
or TMI - ID

To use various search filters - clik the link Refine Search / Filter above

Search Results

Showing 521 to 535 of 2156 Records

   

521

2003 (11) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

RAIPUR FERRO ALLOYS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

Demand - Cenvat/Modvat - Clearance of non-notified goods - Penalty - Mens rea

..... g penalty, we note that mens rea of any kind was not alleged against the party in the show cause notice. The proposal in the SCN was to impose penalty on them for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The party was alleged to have cleared the non-notified goods without following the procedure and without payment of duty. But intent to evade payment of duty was not alleged, nor found by the Commissioner. However, the fact remains that the party effected clearances of the goods in the above manner in spite of having been instructed by the department to discharge duty liability on the goods which were not covered under the compounded levy scheme. The party is, therefore, liable for penalty under Rules 173Q and 226, though not to such harsh extent as determined by the Commissioner. We direct that a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs be paid by the appellants. The penalty imposed in excess of this amount by the Commissioner is set aside. 10. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

522

2003 (11) TMI 247 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

SKY INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-VI

Cenvat/Modvat - Deemed credit - Demand - Limitation

..... be sustained as the dispute relates to denial of deemed credit wherein the applicable provisions are Rule 57-I (4) and 57-I (5) and not Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in the light of the Tribunal s order in the case of W.S. Industries (India) Ltd. v. CCE 2002 (141) E.L.T. 278 (T) 2002 (48) RLT 177 and Bhiwani Textile Mills v. CCE 2003 (151) E.L.T. 365 (T) 2002 (53) RLT 782 . 10. In the result we hold as under (i) The benefit of deemed credit under Notification 29/96 is not available to the appellants. (ii) The demand for the period December, 1998 to October, 1999 is barred by limitation. (iii) The demand for the month of November, 1999 is upheld and the duty payable for this month is to be recalculated. (iv) The demand for the period December, 1999 to March, 2000 is not sustainable in view of reversal of credit by the appellants on 4-12-2000. (v) Levy of interest and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 11. The appeal is partly allowed as above.

523

2003 (11) TMI 216 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

DURACELL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI-III

Words and Phrases - 'Issue' - Penalty - Imposition of - Cenvat/Modvat

..... ncerned with that shall be liable to penalty up to the amount specified in the Rule. It is difficult to accept the argument of the Appellant that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. Both the things are necessary (1) the goods are liable for confiscation and (2) person concerned is liable to penalty. The learned Departmental Representative has rightly distinguished the decision in the case of Osram Surya Pvt. Ltd. The penalty was set aside in the said decision as the credit was taken in the month of September, 1995 and the goods had been received by them in April, 1995 and the restrictions of six months came into effect on 29-6-95. Accordingly, penalty is imposable on the Appellants. The total amount of MODVAT credit wrongly taken by the appellants is more than Rs. 9 lakhs and in our view penalty of Rs. One lakh is justified. We, therefore, reduce the penalty to Rs. One lakh. The appeal is disposed of in the above manner.

524

2003 (11) TMI 241 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

PACE MARKETING SPECIALITIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GHAZIABAD

Cenvat/Modvat

..... they had discharged the duty. When they received back the adhesives as rejected from the trader, the trader had issued the invoice-cum-challan in the name of the appellants. After the receipt of the defective goods, the appellants were not again clearing as such or after rectifying the defects. They were using as we find from the record as input for manufacturing adhesive of another quality known as PU2000 by blending with other ingredients. The new category of adhesive manufactured by them had been cleared on payment of duty. Having discharged the duty on the defective adhesives received from the trader and used the same as the input and not cleared as such after rectifying the defect, they are entitled to claim the Modvat credit. The authorities below, in our view, had wrongly disallowed the same. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief, if any, permissible under the law.

525

2003 (11) TMI 522 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

ALANKAR FABRICATORS & ENGINEERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI

Cenvat/Modvat - Registration of depot - Duty paying documents

..... -LB) was for invoices issued by a dealer, not a case of invoices issued by a depot of the manufacturer and Rule 57G(3)(b) prescribing registration of depot of manufacturer came only in March, 1997. The denial of credit for new registration of depot in this case is therefore not upheld. (b) Since the invoice No. 105/August, 94 was from factory to depot therefore appellant rsquo s name would not be there. However, the invoice used from depot carries the name of the appellant therefore credit would be eligible. 3. emsp In view of the findings, the order is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential benefit.

526

2003 (11) TMI 520 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

INDIAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. MUMBAI-VII

Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration not filed

..... ing the finding - ldquo The said assessee have filed declaration under Rule 57G on 20-3-86 for availing Modvat credit specifying various inputs to be used by them for manufacture of the final products. In addition to the said declaration they separately mentioned in the letter dated 20-3-86 other six inputs which were exempted from duty. rdquo In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that for the six inputs mentioned then exempted no declaration was filed. There is no specific proforma for the declaration or a prohibition for declaring an exempted product as an input. The credit however would be eligible only if duty has been paid on such inputs. In this case the said six inputs were duty paid receipts after 1-4-86. Credit on such duty paid invoices therefore cannot be denied for these six inputs. 3. emsp In view of the findings herein, the order of lower authorities are set aside and credit allowed on duty paid invoices for the six inputs. Appeal allowed in above terms.

527

2003 (11) TMI 240 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

MORAYA GLOBAL PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Penalty

..... issued by a manufacturer. Such a manufacturer has to be registered under Rule 174. As per the rules on registration, once a registration is obtained, no renewal is required until surrender. Surrender of registration would be only on cessation of manufacture. Resulting in the person not being a manufacturer thereafter. Consequently invoices issued on 1-11-1995 and 15-11-1995 by M/s. FMC Aroma (P) Ltd., who have surrendered the registration on 31-10-1995, will not be valid documents to entitle availment of credit. Moreover, no goods have been claimed to have moved under the cover of these invoices. They, therefore, cannot be valid invoices for credit availment. (c) Since ineligible credit has been availed, the consequences of penalty as arrived at are confirmed. Interest under Section 11AA is for duty and not credits interest cannot be upheld. 3. Consequent to the findings herein above, appeal disposed off upholding the order of recovery of credit and penalty and not interest.

528

2003 (10) TMI 559 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

CCE., COIMBATORE Versus UNIVERSAL RADIATORS LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration

..... rder passed by the Commissioner in the assessee rsquo s appeal is required to be confirmed and the order passed in Revenue rsquo s appeal is required to be set aside. 8. emsp On a careful consideration of the submissions, I notice from the records filed by the assessees that they have declared the item lead and tin and have also mentioned that lead alloy will also be utilized therein, thereby a link between tin alloy along with lead and alloy has been established. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) in Revenue rsquo s appeal has clearly analysed the issue and applied the ratio of the Tribunal judgment noted in his order. From that point of view there is no merit in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal and assessee rsquo s contention that lead alloy is a declared item as there was a mention about its utilization in the declaration is required to be accepted. Therefore, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected and party rsquo s appeal is allowed. The stay application is also disposed of.

529

2003 (10) TMI 594 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

GOLDEN DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

..... annot be denied. 4. emsp It is not denied in the appeal that the requirements of name and address of the manufacturer of the goods to be incorporated in the invoice. Sub-rule (11) of Rule 57G, which came on the statute in February 1999, provided that credit could be taken on the basis of documents such as invoices which were not described the particulars, so long as they contain details of payment of duty, description of the goods, assessable value and name and address of the factory or warehouse. Therefore requirement and denial of credit for want of these particulars was in order. 5. emsp Appeals dismissed.

530

2003 (10) TMI 506 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

CHANDAN CHEMICALS Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

Cenvat/Modvat - Accountal of goods

..... , learned Departmental Representative reiterated the finding as contained in both the Orders passed by the lower authorities and submitted that the Appellants had not accounted the goods stored by them which was required to be done under the provisions of Rules 52AA and 57AE(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions of both the sides. The Board under Circular dated 13-2-95 has issued instructions relating to issue of invoices under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. In Para 9(C) of the said Circular, the Board has clearly permitted a registered person not to enter into his RG 23D Register details of those consignments for which he does not propose to issue modvatable invoices. As the impugned goods were not intended to be sold along with the modvatable invoices, there was no requirement by the Appellants to enter them in their RG 23D register. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the Appeal with consequential relief.

531

2003 (10) TMI 588 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

CENTURY RAYON Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration - Delay in filing declaration

..... g authority and the appellants are required to substantiate their case to claim credit against original invoices. 6. emsp Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed as under - (a) The Modvat claim to the extent of Rs. 7,37,576/-, disallowed by the lower authorities on the ground of late declaration or non-declaration, is permitted, (b) Claims in respect of Modvat credit taken on commercial invoice (Rs. 1,736/-) and on the basis of invoices not being in their name (Rs. 2,843/-) are rejected. (c) The claims for credit taken on original invoices Sr. Nos. 34 and 39 of the show cause Notice dated 22 September 1995 (Rs. 3,067/- and Rs. 1,366/-, respectively) are remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for de novo consideration for passing fresh order after following the principles of natural justice, conforming only to the said two invoices. 7. emsp Appeal is allowed partly in the above terms, and consequentially orders of the lower authorities stand modified, as above.

532

2003 (10) TMI 505 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

GHARDA CHEMICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

..... that, all the transporters have lost the duplicate copy of invoice in transit. Therefore, I hold that appellants are not in position to justify their claim for Modvat on the basis of original documents. Therefore, the claim against original invoices is rejected. 4. emsp So far as the invoices issued by Metco services and trading are concerned, I notice that the critical particulars as prescribed by Notification Nos. 32/94 and 33/94-C.E. (N.T.) are not incorporated therein. Therefore, the credit taken against the invoices issued by the said dealer is also correctly held as inadmissible by the lower authorities. 5. emsp Accordingly, I hold that, except for allowing the credit pertaining to the consignment diverted to Dombivili from the head office, relating to the credit of Rs. 39,668/-, the claim for the remaining amount is disallowed. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected partly and partly allowed for the claim to the extent of Rs. 39,668/-. Appeal disposed off in above terms.

533

2003 (10) TMI 184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

ENCEE DYING & PRINTING WORKS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-V

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

..... f precautions relating to loss of duplicate copy is concerned, the original authority has denied the credit, not on the basis of his subjective finding that such a loss has occurred, but on the ground that transporter ought to have taken suitable measures to avoid this loss. The loss in transit itself is not disputed. The order in appeal, however, asserts that prior permission is required and post facto condonation is not permissible. This finding cannot be supported as only requirement of Rule 57G(A) is that the appellant had to merely demonstrate that there had been a loss of duplicate copy of the invoice in transit. In that situation only on the basis of the Assistant Commissioner s finding to the effect that there had been no such loss the credit could have been disallowed. In the absence of such a finding, the appellants are entitled to take the credit. 4. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and consequently the orders of the lower authorities are set aside.

534

2003 (10) TMI 490 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

ALLIED DYES & CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I

Rectification of mistake - Factual error - Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Invoice - Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Grounds - Merits of case

535

2003 (10) TMI 156 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus TI METAL SECTIONS

Adjustment in duty credit

..... eriod prior to 1991, that is to say, much earlier than the amendment which took place on 1-3-97, there was no provision to deny issue of Certificate A under Rule 57E. The Order-in-Original No. 29/91, dated 6-9-91 under which the duty was originally demanded was further recalculated and duty demanded vide Order-in-Original No. 56/95, dated 21-6-95 which order was also prior to the amendment which took place on 1-3-97. We, therefore, find that for the duty demanded and paid by them as a result of adjudication proceedings vide OIO No. 29/91, dated 6-9-91 and vide OIO No. 56/95, dated 21-6-95, they cannot be denied issue of Certificate A under Rule 57E inasmuch as there was no provision to deny such certificate where duty was paid by the assessees subsequent to the clearances effected. 6. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are in agreement with the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and we sustain the same. The appeal by Revenue is, therefore, rejected.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options


Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.