New User / Register | Annual Subscription | SMS Option | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
Tax Management India .com
             
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 2172 Records

   

521

2004 (1) TMI 275 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

ASPAIF TEXTILE LAMINATIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... s a document issued by the dealer and its eligibility has to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in Notification 15/94 C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. 7. On comparing the contents of the composite document, it is obvious that all the particulars required under the Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) are present therein and therefore, the credit was correctly taken by the appellants on the basis of the said document. In fact, the departmental authorities had accepted this position inasmuch as, both the documents were defaced together. In case one of the documents was not valid for taking credit the same need not have been considered as a duty paying document and subjected to defacement. Accordingly I find that the lower authorities were in error in denying the credit. 8. Consequently orders of the lower authorities are required to be set aside and are accordingly set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

522

2004 (1) TMI 594 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... storage permission retrospectively, is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the objection is redundant when within the currency of limitation period the said permission for outside storage was available with the appellants. 6. emsp The credit was denied on the ground, that the same was taken beyond the period of 6 months stipulated in the proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as introduced by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-95. The findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are correct. There is no scope to mix up the issue of permission for outside storage and the limitation of 6 months stipulated for taking credit. Board rsquo s Circular dated 9-5-96 nowhere conveys that on grant of such permission the time limit for taking credit will not apply. 7. emsp Therefore, in the absence of any other grounds pleaded to justify taking of credit beyond the period of 6 months, the appellant rsquo s appeal is hereby rejected.

523

2004 (1) TMI 593 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE Versus TAMIL NADU TOBACCO CO. LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... C.C.E., reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 840. In the present case also as noted above, the only ground on which the substantive benefit is sought to be denied is that the invoice has not been re-endorsed when the goods were re-loaded. We further find from the records that the supplier viz. M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Ltd. have honestly endorsed the invoice with the remarks ldquo despatched by local lorry up to Transporter rsquo s godown for onward despatch to destination rdquo . This factual position has been noted by the original authority in the orders-in-original. To deny the substantive benefit of Modvat credit in such circumstances is too harsh to say the least. We find from the order portion of the lower appellate authority rsquo s order extracted above that he has passed a very reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue appeals as being devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.

524

2004 (1) TMI 256 - CESTAT, KOLKATA

TEXMACO LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-III

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... any case and in any event of the matter, we also find force in the appellants submission that the said Rule would not be attracted in the present set of facts and circumstances, where the entire goods covered by a bill of entry, were sold to the appellants and the bill of entry was endorsed within a period of six months and the first lot was also received within a period of six months. The entry based upon the said bill of entry was duly made in the RG-23A Part-I and Part-II within a period of six months from the bill of entry. It is only subsequently when different lots were received on different dates, the appellants actually took the Credit because of the simple reason that the Credit cannot be taken without the receipt of the goods and the goods could not have been transported in one lot to the appellants factory on account of its bulky nature. 8. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

525

2004 (1) TMI 584 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods

.......... e of the appellants and covered by the ratio laid down in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed that after the amendment of Rules 57G and T, an assessee will be entitled to the Modvat credit if other conditions are satisfied, even if defective or no declaration had been filed. But this contention was never raised before the authorities below. Since the case is being sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for having not passed proper speaking order regarding the condonation of delay, this contention of the appellants shall be also considered by him in the alternative specially when he has already held the goods eligible for Modvat credit 10. emsp In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. However, the matter is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the case afresh, in accordance with law. 11. emsp Both the appeals of the appellants stand disposed of in the above terms.

526

2004 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR Versus NV. ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... o. 62/99, dated 16-10-1999). 6. In view of the above Trade Notice, we find no merits in the contention of the Revenue that the goods in question were not brought to the registered premises of the dealer. In respect of the contention of the Revenue that the dealer has not received coils whereas he issued invoices in respect of the sheets, we find that the Revenue is not asking for any duty from the person who is cutting coils into sheets after decoiling. Further we find that above mentioned Trade Notice also covers this situation. As per the trade notice that cutting should be done in such a way that it does not result in change in tariff classification. In the present case, the revenue is not pleading that by cutting of coils amounts to manufacture or by cutting of coils the classification is changed. Therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the invoices issued, by the dealer in respect of the sheets cannot be denied. 7. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

527

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.

528

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.

529

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.

530

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.

531

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.

532

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.

533

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.

534

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.

535

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new


© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.