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

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 2166 Records

   

521

2004 (1) TMI 450 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV

Demand - Clandestine removal - Penalty

.......... uch is not the position in this case. 5. emsp Similarly the argument of the learned Counsel that penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed cannot be accepted. The bare perusal of the show cause notice shows that penalty of the amount equal to that of duty amount was proposed to be imposed on the appellants. The only mistake appearing in the show cause notice is that instead of mentioning Section 11AC, Section 11A had been typed. Rule 57-I had been correctly mentioned. Mere the omission to mention the correct Section for imposing penalty did not render the show cause notice invalid. The appellants cannot be said to had been taken by surprise regarding imposition of penalty on them. Rather they knew that penalty equal to the amount of duty had been sought to be recovered from them through the show cause notice. 6. emsp In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

522

2004 (1) TMI 536 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

MRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

Cenvat/Modvat credit - Adjustment of - Exemption - Availment of

.......... then Notification No. 21/99 becomes irrelevant and otiose. This Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland v. CCE, Chennai vide final order Nos. 546 and 547/2002, dated 3-5-2002 as cited by the learned SDR has decided similar case in favour of the Revenue. In the present case, if the credit of duty was originally taken by the assessees, after 28-2-1999, then they had a case. As against that, admittedly, 95 credit was taken before the crucial date. The case laws cited by the appellants also would not come to their rescue as the facts and circumstances dealt with in those cases are not similar to the facts in the present case as could be seen from the case laws as cited above. 6. emsp In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned order of demand of expunction of the excess credit of Rs. 34,211/- being the 5 differential credit. The order impugned is therefore, upheld and the appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

523

2004 (1) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII

Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Demand and penalty

.......... tates that sub-rule (7) of Rule 57F is very clear that re-credit has to be taken in the account maintained under sub-rule (7) of the Rule 57G which means RG 23A Part II account. He also states that Column 20 in the form Revised Annexure IV refers to particulars of payment of duty on scrap/waste under column No. 19. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I am satisfied that the re-credit has been taken in the PLA out of genuine confusion on the part of the appellants. I also observe that there is no dispute about the amount of re-credit taken and the Revenue interest is not affected by the fact that the re-credit has been taken in the PLA of the amount which was earlier paid through the PLA. As such, there is no case for raising the demand and imposition of penalty on the appellants. The matter could have been rectified by making necessary correction in the PLA and RG 23 Part II accounts. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.

524

2003 (12) TMI 179 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

VIKRAM ISPAT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-VII

Cenvat/Modvat - Loss of invoice

.......... d documents under Rule 57G(3)(a). 3. Considering the fact that a similar situation relating to loss of invoices issued under Rule 100E can arise as has happened in the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Rule 57G(6) can be followed mutatis mutandis to deal with such cases. Since the appellants have produced a copy of the custom attested copy of the triplicate invoice, the same can be considered by the original authority for grant of duty credit after due verification from the supplier s factory which being a 100 E.O.U. is under Customs control. As such, I set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the original authority for causing necessary verification regarding payment of duty and receipt of goods in terms of Rule 57G(6) and for considering the claim of the appellants to Modvat credit of Rs. 8,10,787/-. The appellants shall be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh speaking order. 4. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

525

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.

526

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.

527

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.

528

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.

529

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.

530

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.

531

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.

532

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.

533

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.

534

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.

535

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new

Updates Knowledge Sharing Subscription Communication Newsletters More 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.