New User / Register | Bookmarks | Annual Subscription | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
           
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

BUDGET CHANGES REGARDING DTA CLEARANCES valuation job work Cenvat Credit Applicability of State VAT or CST CT -1 procedure current local tax rate (vat rate) for s.s patta/ coil / strip Rules of register Change in section 15A Central Excise Act 1944 exemption limit Reg. Short amount deposit against excise duty
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 2162 Records

   

521

2003 (12) TMI 126 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

AMIT INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI

Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts - Penalty

.......... sed by the department against M/s. Amit Industries is barred by limitation. The demand is, therefore, set aside. Consequently, the penalty imposed on them is also set aside. The only finding recorded against Suresh Agarwal in the impugned order is that he aided and abetted the offence (of suppression of facts with intent to evade duty) of M/s. Amit Industries. This finding is of no relevance to Rule 209A whereunder a person to be penalized must, knowing that certain excisable goods were liable to confiscation under the Central Excise Act/Rules, either have acquired possession of those goods or have been concerned in physically dealing with the goods in any of the various modes specifically mentioned under the Rule. Even otherwise, the Commissioner s finding is of no consequence in the wake of our finding that M/s. Amit Industries did not suppress any fact. Therefore, the penalty on Suresh Agarwal is also set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

522

2003 (12) TMI 516 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

RATAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

Demand - Limitation - Suppression

.......... 1-4-97 to 30-6-2000 through the show cause notice, dated 15-10-2001 must be held to be time-barred. 11. emsp Since the duty demand has been held to be time-barred, the other issue on merits regarding the availability of the benefit of the notification in question to the appellants 1 and 2 in respect of the goods in question is not required to be gone into. 12. emsp The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole short ground alone that the demand is barred by limitation. 13. emsp Since the duty demand has been found to be time-barred, the plea of the Revenue raised in Appeal No. E/2261/02 for awarding interest and imposing independent penalty under Rule 173Q becomes redundant. 14. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside in toto. The appeals of the appellants 1 and 2 (E-2258-2259/03-B) are accepted with consequential relief, permissible under the law, while the appeal of the Revenue E/2261/02-B is dismissed.

523

2003 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

RATAN INDUSTRIES P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

Demand - Limitation - Suppression

.......... 1-4-97 to 30-6-2000 through the show cause notice, dated 15-10-2001 must be held to be time-barred. 11. emsp Since the duty demand has been held to be time-barred, the other issue on merits regarding the availability of the benefit of the notification in question to the appellants 1 and 2 in respect of the goods in question is not required to be gone into. 12. emsp The impugned order is liable to be set aside on the sole short ground alone that the demand is barred by limitation. 13. emsp Since the duty demand has been found to be time-barred, the plea of the Revenue raised in Appeal No. E/2261/02 for awarding interest and imposing independent penalty under Rule 173Q becomes redundant. 14. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside in toto. The appeals of the appellants 1 and 2 (E-2258-2259/03-B) are accepted with consequential relief, permissible under the law, while the appeal of the Revenue E/2261/02-B is dismissed.

524

2003 (12) TMI 572 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VI Versus NATIONAL ORGANICS CHEMICALS INDIA LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... acturer or subsequently by a dealer is an evidence of secondary nature which generates from the primary evidence of payment through TR 6 challan. When the rules accept the evidence of secondary documents, it is impossible to visualise that the primary evidence of duty payment i.e. TR 6, on the basis of which the secondary documents are created has to be discarded. It has to be understood that, the plethora of secondary documents have been recognised, only for the reason that, for the user of inputs, it may not be possible to obtain or access the primary duty paying documents. 4. emsp In the circumstances, I find no merit in Revenue rsquo s appeal and the same is rejected.

525

2003 (12) TMI 105 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

SHRIRAM PISTONS & RINGS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., GHAZIABAD

Manufacture - Cenvat/Modvat

.......... cluded in the value of the final product. (vi) accessories of the final product cleared along with such final product, the value of which is included in the assessable value of the final product. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-rule, its is hereby clarified that the term inputs refers only to such inputs as may be specified in a notification issued under Rule 57A. Even if the imported rings are being supplied along with the rings manufactured by the assessee, as an accessory of piston ring set, the assessee is entitled to take credit by taking recourse to Clause (vi) of Rule 57B. A similar view taken by this Tribunal in Rico Auto Industries Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi, 2003 (157) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) 2003 (57) RLT 271 (CEGAT - Del.). We do not find any consideration on this issue by the Commissioner (Appeals). 12.For the above reasons, we find that the denial of credit to the appellants is unjustified. We, therefore, set aside the order impugned and allow the appeals.

526

2003 (12) TMI 70 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ASIAN PAINTS (INDIA) LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Penalty - Interpretation of statute

.......... y the Collector in relation to the direction to reverse the Modvat credit to the extent of Rs. 32,44,904.46 ps. 11.As regards the challenge to the penalty, mere absence of mala fide can be no justification to interfere in the said order. Undoubtedly, the petitioners were fully aware that the notification did not include the inputs falling under the Heading 27 and therefore no credit could have been availed in respect of the duty paid on such inputs while paying the duty on the final product. Apparently therefore, the credit was availed contrary to the provisions of law, knowing well the said provisions of law, thereby warranting levy of the said penalty. Besides, considering the amount of credit availed of and the penalty being of less than 1/6th of the said amount, there is no justification for interference in the order of penalty. 12.In the circumstances, there is no case for interference, and hence, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged with costs.

527

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.

528

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.

529

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.

530

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.

531

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.

532

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.

533

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.

534

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.

535

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options


Quick Links: | Acts and Rules | Notifications | Circulars | Schedules | Tariff | Forms | Case Laws | Manuals |
| Home | About us | Contact us | Feed Back | Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Members | |
Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.