|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 78 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 187 - SC ORDER
Reversal of cenvat credit - waste, refuse or bye-product - Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004/2002 and Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Remission of duty in terms of rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules.
-
2012 (1) TMI 183 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... yer of sea food. The LC for payment by the foreign buyer is opened in the name of the appellant. On the advice of the appellant, the sale proceeds of sea food for the Indian exporter stands paid. Under these circumstances, we are of the prima facie view that the appellant has received the commission for the services rendered by them in foreign exchange only. Further, in their own case for the earlier period, the Tribunal has waived pre-deposit of dues and we are not inclined to take a different view at this stage. The decision in the case of Manglam Yarn Agencies vs. CCE, Jaipur-II relied upon by the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) is on the appreciation of facts in the said case, where it has been clearly held that the payment has been received in Indian currency from Nepal. 5. In view of the above, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of dues as per the impugned order and stay of recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeals. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 182 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of three months and five days in preferring the appeal - dispute is relating to the valuation of physician samples of medicaments - Held that: - there was neither any fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, that can be attributed to the respondent, for invoking larger period of limitation - there being no mala fide attributed to the appellant on the ground of extended period of limitation as well as penalty, no error could be seen in the order of the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 181 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Counsel for the Revenue pointed out that the present Tax Appeal concerns the ex-parte order passed by the competent authority ordering such suspension of the licence. However, subsequently after hearing the respondent also, further order came to be passed confirming the order of suspension. This further order was challenged separately by the respondent before the Tribunal. Such Tax Appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal. Against the said order of the Tribunal, revenue has preferred separate Tax Appeal No. 959 of 2011. Since the present Tax Appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal, raising the question of legality of ex parte suspension order and since subsequently, after by-parte hearing suspension was ordered to be continued, the initial order having merged in the subsequent order, we are not required to entertain this Tax Appeal, particularly when the Department has preferred independent appeal, which is pending. This Tax Appeal is, therefore, disposed of.
-
2012 (1) TMI 180 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s beyond clarification of the direction already given. The same is not, thus, liable to be quashed on the ground that it is beyond the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to clarify its direction. The subsequent direction is not on a fresh cause of action nor by way of fresh adjudication. 19. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in Writ Appeal Nos.394/2010 and 395/2010 and in the stand of the Revenue that the judgments of this Court are rendered inexecutable. It is, however, made clear that the Finance Act, 2011 will be fully applicable and the parties will act in accordance with the terms and conditions for exemption as modified by the said Act. The Revenue may, now, deal with the matter in accordance with the judgments of this Court by applying the amendment to the exemption notifications vide Finance Act, 2011. The matter may be finalised within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. The Misc. Case and the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (1) TMI 179 - SC ORDER
Classification of coconut oil packed in containers and pouches - Appellants is repacking the goods of brand "New Nihar Naturals" declared to be edible grade coconut oil received from HLL into small retail packets - Classification under chapter sub-heading No. 33 or under Chapter No.15.
-
2012 (1) TMI 178 - SC ORDER
Revoking of central excise registration - not engaged in manufacturing activity - involved in slitting of jumbo aluminium foils into blister form rolls of the required sizes and thereafter printing them in multi colour.
-
2012 (1) TMI 177 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd rejected the Revenue's case that such education cess was required to be paid once again. To our mind, such decision of the Tribunal would certainly be covered under the expression “the order determining a question having relation to the rate of duty of excise”. If the Department is correct in its stand, the manufacturers would have to pay excise duty at a rate higher than what they have been paying. In other words, computation of excise duty would have to include component of education cess. On the other hand, if the manufacturers are correct in their stand, such education cess would be excluded. In any case, it would have a direct bearing on the rate at which manufacturers should pay the excise duty on their clearances in the DTA from EOU Units. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the respondents' preliminary objection is required to be upheld.” In the result, this Tax Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
-
2012 (1) TMI 176 - SC ORDER
By product versus waste - Whether the fatty acids/soap stock, waxes and gums obtained in course of refining of the vegetable oils are eligible for duty exemption under the Notification No. 89/95-C.E - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Versus AG FLATS LTD. [2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] referred - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 172 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o discuss the matter with his client. He says that he has instructions from his client to pursue this appeal notwithstanding the fact that this Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. 3. We accordingly dismiss this appeal, but in view of the attitude of the appellant in this matter, we impose costs of ₹ 5,000/- to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks. 4. List for compliance on 23-2-2012.
-
2012 (1) TMI 171 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... here is no requirement of filing any cross objections. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly agrees that the Cross objections filed by the Revenue are in nature of written submissions as such COD filed by them was not required. He accordingly disposes of COD as infructuous. Stay petition is allowed in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 164 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the show cause notice, the Commissioner was right in refraining from imposing any penalty. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 8. In our opinion, since the assessee had paid the duty and interest thereon even before a demand was made by way of a show cause notice, there was obviously no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in evading the duty and interest. Thereon even before a demand was made by way of a show cause notice, there was obviously no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in evading the duty and interest. Both the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, under these circumstances, penalty ought not to have been imposed on the assessee. We do not find any reason to interfere with the view expressed by the Tribunal. 9. In our opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 10. Dismissed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund in cash - whether debit made in CENVAT/MODVAT account, refund can be made in cash? - Held that: - the debit entry was made in the year 1997 whereas, the factory was closed in the year 2000 - This case is fairly covered by the decision in the case of Kochar Sung-Up Acrylic Limited,[2010 (8) TMI 330 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] wherein the Tribunal upheld the refund made in cash to the assessee and rejected the claim of the Revenue that refund should have been given by way of credit in the Cenvat credit account - refund in cash allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (1) TMI 161 - SC ORDER
Classification - As regards Heading 28.35 prior to 28.2.2005, it covered Phosphinates (hypophosphites), Phosphonates (Phosphites), phosphates and poly-phosphates whether or not chemically defined.
-
2012 (1) TMI 160 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ade by the respondents, stands upheld and the writ petitions are dismissed being not maintainable at this stage. 27. The petitioner may respond to the impugned show cause notices dealing with all the grounds urged in the writ petitions. In the event of such response being shown, the authority shall deal with the same towards taking a decision in the impugned show cause notices. Depending upon the outcome of such a course of action, future rights and liabilities of the parties will govern. 28. Before parting with the case records, it is made clear that this order has not touched the merit of the case of the either parties, which shall be decided by the authority dealing with the show cause notices and the reply, if any, furnished by the petitioner. Needless to say that the said authority shall deal with the matter appropriately and strictly in accordance with law and facts involved. 29. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (1) TMI 159 - SC ORDER
Demand, interest and penalty - 100% EOU - denying the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.8/97-CE dt. 1.3.97 on the ground of use of imported wax in the yarn, as the exemption was available only to goods manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India.
-
2012 (1) TMI 158 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tification that no material should be procured by the job-worker. We also find that this issue has been considered by the Tribunal in Shakti Insulators and Wires Ltd. reported at 2002 (149) E.L.T. 365 (Tri.-Mum.) wherein it was decided that the exemption will be available even in situations where some minor materials procured by the job-worker is used. In fact in most situations some materials like consumables procured in the factory of manufacture will be used directly or indirectly in undertaking the manufacturing process and that can not be a reason to deny the exemption. We are also not in agreement with the argument that the issue as to which is the main raw material should be decided by the weight of the materials involved. In the circumstances we do not see any merit in the contention that the exemption is not available in the present case. 8. Consequently the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and that filed by Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 156 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e re-worked out in the light of our findings as above. It has also been stated by the learned Advocate for the appellants that Section 11AC only came into force with effect from 28-9-1996 and we agree that penalty can not be imposed under the said Section for the relevant period, as the same is prior to 28-9-1996. However, we hasten to add that appropriate penalty can be imposed under Rule 173Q for the relevant period under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. 7. For the purpose of re-quantification of the clearances made, and consequent re-working of duty demand and imposition of appropriate penalty, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority. He shall give an adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing a fresh order in regard to the duty demand and penalty. 8. The appeals are allowed in the above terms by way of limited remand. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 30-1-2012)
-
2012 (1) TMI 155 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... h Court in TELCO case. 28. In my considered view, the ratio of the decision rendered by this Tribunal in Union Carbide case and by the Hon’ble High Court in TELCO case is squarely applicable to the instant case. 29. Appellant can also legitimately claim support from the Tribunal’s decision relating to grease-proof paper and release paper as also from the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Escorts case (vide supra). 30. In the result, with great respect for the view taken by the learned Technical Member, I concur with the learned Vice-President. The point is held in favour of the assessee. The records may be placed before the Division Bench for pronouncing the majority decision. MAJORITY ORDER 31. We hold that the disputed item is an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of “Heritage Flakes” and hence eligible to credit, and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals. (Pronounced in Court on 23-1-2012)
-
2012 (1) TMI 154 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - goods returned - time limitation - Whether the Show Cause Notice issued on 22-9-2004 has to be held as time barred? - Whether the fact that Rule 7(l)(b) as it existed in the statute book at the time of issue of Show Cause Notice can be invoked for considering applicability of extended period? - difference of opinion - scrutiny of assessment - Held that: - In view of the majority order, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
