|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 225 Records
-
2013 (8) TMI 1154 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... eave granted. Tag with C.A. Nos. 10619-10620/2011.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1111 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated by this Court in Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (supra) and also by the Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 394/10 and 395/10. We further direct that the steps, in tune with the directions given by the Tripura High Court, in its order, dated 09-07-2013, shall be taken by the respondents/authorities concerned so that the claim of the petitioner company, as regards making of investments, is, adequately and fully, decided by the IAC. 21. The whole exercise, as directed above, shall be completed expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copies of this order by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Chief Commissioner Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Shillong and The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Guwahati, Assam. 22. With the above observations and directions, this writ petitions shall stand disposed of. 23. No order as to costs. 24. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1087 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ce tax was taken on sale office but absolutely there is no observation whether the appellant s submission is correct or not. In the absence of any observation and in the absence of any contrary finding, the only option is to accept this submission as correct. Once the office accommodated the CEO, accounting staf, human resource development staff, sourcing staff, purchasing department staff, etc. of the appellant, it cannot be said that the activity in the sales office do not have any relationship with manufacturing activity and therefore, the appellant is definitely eligible for CENVAT credit of service tax paid on renting of sales office since the definition of input service clearly covers. Moreover, I find that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel to support his submissions regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit of service tax are also applicable to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, both the appeals are allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1083 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he appeal is admitted. Tag with C.A. 1218/2006.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1073 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... led today for ascertaining the compliance with the stay order, neither anybody appeared nor is there any compliance on record. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the stay order referred supra. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 1072 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... on to entertain this special leave petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1071 - CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... roduction of evidence to show that it has been passed on to the customers. Accordingly, he has recorded in the absence of relevant details as to veracity of deductions being passed on to the customers, it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion that these deductions, though admissible in law, were actually passed on to their customers . 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that since the dispute revolved around legal issue, they did not submit any evidence to prove their case. They, if given an opportunity, would be able to substantiate the fact of passing on the discounts to their customers. 4. In view of the above submissions made by the learned advocate, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh decision after allowing an opportunity to the appellant to putforth their case evidence. 5. Stay petitions as also appeals gets disposed of in the above manner. (operative part of the order pronounced in the open court )
-
2013 (8) TMI 1047 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and if the same are to be retained, copies thereof ought to be given to the assessee. We, however, are not in position to adjudicate on the stand of the Department that 11 documents in question have already been furnished to the assessee. This can be better determined by the adjudicating authority, with reference to the record available with it. 8. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with a direction that either the documents in question be furnished, as directed by the Single Judge, or a finding be recorded that the said documents have already been furnished and, if not furnished, the effect thereof. The writ petitioners will be at liberty to raise the plea that the documents have not been furnished and absence thereof will prejudice their case. The adjudicating authority will decide the objection before proceeding further. Reply to the show cause may be filed within one month from today subject to their objection. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2013 (8) TMI 1036 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Abatement of the proceedings in case the Settlement Commission - time limitation - Section 32F(6) of the Central Excise Act, 1944
-
2013 (8) TMI 1022 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Demand of interest and penalty - revenue neutrality - improper Valuation - appellant has paid the duty liability on being pointed out - Held that:- The contention raised by the appellant as to revenue neutrality has got strong force inasmuch as there is no dispute that clearance of resins was to their own sister unit. There cannot be any intention to evade duty on such clearance made to their own sister concern, as the said sister concerns admittedly are discharging the duty liability on the final products manufactured by them; which would mean that the sister concerns could have availed the Cenvat credit of any duty paid by the appellant on clearance of resins to them.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (8) TMI 977 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... late authority, while passing the impugned order, has not considered the factual matrix involved. Therefore, the matter has to be determined afresh by taking into account the terms of purchase and sale in respect of the various transactions involved. 6. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to consider the terms of sale in respect of the transactions involved and determine which is the ‘place of removal’. In the case of transfer depots or branches from where the sale takes place, the law itself provides that the cost of transportation up to the depot or the branches would be includable in the assessable value. In respect of other buyers, the individual contracts will have to be examined to ascertain the terms of sale and delivery and the matter will have to be decided taking into account such terms and conditions. 7. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. The cross-objection is also disposed of. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 960 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ication gives the benefit of concessional rate of duty only to those products which are used as fertilizer and fall under Chapter 31. Since the appellant is disputing the classification of the product under Chapter 28 in grounds of appeal, we find that the appellant needs to be put to some condition for hearing and disposing the appeals. 7. Accordingly, keeping in mind that the issue involved is reclassification of the product, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs (Rupees ten lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance before Deputy Registrar on 24-10-2013. Deputy Registrar, on ascertaining such compliance, will place the file before the Bench on 31-10-2013 for passing an appropriate order. Subject to such compliance being reported, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals. (Dictated & pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 956 - CESTAT BANGALORE
100% EOU - CENVAT Credit on the 3rd education cess paid - Service recipient - Held that:- If education cess on CVD portion is admissible, 3rd time cess which is payable according to the Department on the ground that what is required to be paid by the 100% EOU is excise duty and the total excise duty arises only after calculation of equal amount to customs duty and therefore the 3rd time cess should be paid supports the assessee’s case. If the 3rd education cess is considered as a levy on total excise duty, the obvious conclusion would be that the credit also admissible - credit allowed.
Whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit on education cess paid to the extent of full amount or not? - Held that:- The decision of the Tribunal in Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2008 (1) TMI 147 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] case is squarely applicable in respect of the Cenvat credit of education cess in respect of the appellant - credit allowed.
Whether the appellant can take Cenvat credit of excise duty paid equal to the amount of cess paid on the additional customs duty or the amount calculated in accordance with formula as per Rule 3(7)(a) of CCR? - Held that:- When the statutory provisions clearly provide that appellant can take credit as per the formula, the question of availing the credit equal to the additional duty indicated in the invoice does not arise as far as credit of duty is concerned - the credit of ₹ 82,965/- availed by the appellant is clearly not admissible and therefore is required to be paid back - credit cannot be allowed.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2013 (8) TMI 951 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ri jurisdiction, accordingly this writ petition is maintainable. However, in view of my aforementioned findings the order passed by the Joint Excise Commissioner is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. In the facts and circumstances of this case the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 10 lakhs before the appropriate authority by three weeks for reconsidering the case on merit upon giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. The Joint Commissioner, Central Excise is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner or their authorized representative within six weeks from the date of deposit. The deposit made shall abide by the result of the order to be passed by the Joint Commissioner. In case the writ petitioners did not deposit the aforementioned amount the order under challenged would revive and the respondents would be entitled to recover the demand as made by them.
-
2013 (8) TMI 933 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... l Appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2013 (8) TMI 921 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - Brass Sheets - description of goods mentioned wrongly in the invoices.
Held that:- There is no denial of the fact that the description of the goods was mentioned in the invoices issued by the registered dealer as only 'brass sheet' and the same stands reflected by the Appellant in their statutory records. The same have also been used in the manufacture of final products, on which duty has been paid by them - CENVAT Credit cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (8) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... aid order. Having gone through said order, we find that the appeal itself could be disposed at this juncture. Hence, we allow the application for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved and take up the appeal for disposal. 3. After perusing our Final Order dt.03.05.2013, we find that it is in respect of assessee’s own case and the issue involved in that case and in the case in hand is same. Accordingly, following the said order dt.13.05.2013, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Appeal and stay allowed. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 913 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent is a category of modified starch of CE TH 3505 as per the grounds of appeal. 3. Shri Kuntal Parikh (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the classification of MSP manufactured by the Respondent was the subject matter of appeal No. E/390/2007 & E/391/2007 wherein this very Bench has pronounced the order that MSP is classifiable under CE TH 1103.00 and accordingly rejected that appeal filed by the Revenue. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the case records. It is seen from the records that classification of the product MSP manufactured by the appellant has been decided under CETH 1103.00 in Appeal No. No. E/390/2007 & E/391/2007 filed by the Revenue by passing order No. A/10968-10969/WZB/ Ahd./2013, dated 7-8-2013 2013 (298) E.L.T. 439 (T) in the case of the same assessee. In view of the view already taken by the Bench, this appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (8) TMI 902 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Stay petition - Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that: - we dismiss the appeal of M/s.Gold Star Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. for non compliance with the provisions of section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with stay order No. No.55665-55669/2013 dated 10.1.2013.
-
2013 (8) TMI 900 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... such order relates to a rebate of duly of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported to any country or territory outside India. 2. In the present case, the appeal relates to rebate of excise duty and the order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and. therefore, such appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file appeal before the competent authority. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
........
|
