New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Canteen Service Provider Applicability of Notificaton 218/86 S TAX DEDUCTION Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence IS SALES TAX / VAT APPLICABLE FOR TRANSPORTERS. Clearance of goods to 100% EOU Unit in SEZ under ARE3 -Reg. Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration valuation of goods and ED on scrap Two companies in different states Import of Service i.e. Payment to architect of Dubai for construction of House in India
Index Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise

Law Court

Citation Year Volume


Advanced Search options

Showing 101 to 120 of 50890 Records

Central Excise - Case Laws

 

.. ....6.... ..

2014 (4) TMI 187 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Abhishek Industries Ltd Versus CCE, Ludhiana

Refund Appellant demanded for refund was in respect of Cenvat credit of AED on the ground that they consumed raw material purchased for the manufacture of excisable goods exported on payment of duty - Held that - cenvat credit of AED(T TA) accumulated on account of the final exported product being not leviable to the same is required to be refunded in terms of Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., ROHTAK Versus INDO DANE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES 2007 (2) TMI 77 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Decided in favour of assessee. ......


2014 (4) TMI 186 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Golden Eagle Shoe Factory Versus CCE, Kanpur

Rejection of remission claim - Demand in respect of fully manufactured goods which were destroyed in the fire accident - Held that - though it is a fact that the entire manufactured goods along with the statutory records maintained in the ordinary course of business were destroyed in the fire. If that be so, the numbers of pairs of footwear becomes irrelevant in as much as it was the entire stock which was damaged. We also take into notice a subsequent show cause notice raising the demand of duty against the appellant in respect of 4200 pairs of shoes which were destroyed in the fire. This indicates that the Revenue accepts the appellant contention that prior to the fire accident, the figures appearing in RGI register of 4200 shoes. Further ......


2014 (4) TMI 185 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Vetrivel Engineering Enterprises Versus CCE, Trichy

Waiver of predeposit of duty - SSI exemption notification - Held that - clause (b) of Notification No. 83/94 states that in the event of failure on the part of receiving back the goods from the job worker, the manufacturer would pay the duty as if such goods were manufactured by the said supplier and sold on his own account. In any event, if we take the job work goods of Rs. 31 lakhs then it would be within the exemption limit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.4.2003. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that they have surrendered the registration certificate and have no official communication with the Department regarding the movement of the semi-finished goods to the job worker. Hence, there is a factual dispute on the movemen ......


2014 (4) TMI 184 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Shree Raj Pan Masala (P) Ltd., and others Versus CCE., Jaipur II

Waiver of pre deposit - Duty demand - Held that - Shri Girish Kumar Thampy in his statement has admitted that Shri Rajesh Bhatia was employed by him to make entries in the computer and for the said purpose Shri Rajesh Bhatia was given Rs.2500/- per month. Shri Rajesh Bhatia has admitted that they have made entries in the computer printout. We have already seen the computer printout which reflect the date, RR No., Brake mould, product, quantity, Misc. party and the buyer s name. The product shown in said computer printout is B-1 indicating appellants brand name as Bombay 1000. Railway receipts mentioned in the said computer printout stand recovered by Revenue to a large extent. All these evidences and statements of various persons indicate c ......


2014 (4) TMI 183 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Suraj Prakash Versus CCE., Kanpur

Waiver of pre deposit of penalty - Clandestine manufacture and removal of final product - Held that - The company manufacturing final product and evading duty on the finding of clandestine removal has already been sold. The appellants have not made out a prima facie case so as to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit. Though we agree that recovery is required to be made against the company and the said fact cannot be made the basis for deciding the quantum of penalty on the present Director but we find that the adjudicating authority has discussed and has taken into consideration ample evidence for imposing penalty. As such we note that there is evidence in the shape of statement of various persons which reflect upon the role played by ......


2014 (4) TMI 182 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Grasim Industries Ltd. Versus CCE., Indore

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - quantum of credit availed by the appellant in terms of the formula mentioned in Rule 3(7) (a) - Held that - it is thus clear that the noticee has taken wrong cenvat credit in contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The noticee s contention that they have declared the fact of taking of credit in the ER- returns and therefore, extended period is not invokable is not sustainable due to the fact that in the ER-I returns only consolidated figures of total credit taken on inputs is shown in the ER- 1 returns, invoice wise credit figures are not shown. This fact of wrong credit could only be detected by audit on scrutiny of input invoices with cenvat credit account. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. vs ......


2014 (4) TMI 181 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

MEGHA HEALTHCARE P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DAMAN

Denial of refund claim - whether the appellant herein is eligible for refund of the so-called excess duty paid by M/s. Nirman Pharma - Held that - M/s. Nirman Pharma has assessed the Physician s Samples cleared by them and the said assessment of duty liability is discharged by M/s. Nirman Pharma as a manufacturer of excisable goods. In my view, the assessment which is not challenged by manufacturer after discharge of Central Excise duty cannot be challenged by the recipient of such products. Undoubtedly the appellant could have claimed refund of the amount of excess Central Excise Duty paid by M/s. Nirman Pharma provided the said Nirman Pharma had contested the duty liability under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on Physicians S ......


2014 (4) TMI 148 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

M/s GDB Enterprises And Another Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And Others

Waiver of pre deposit - Quantum of pre deposit - manufacture of tractor parts - Held that - Pre deposit amount requested by appellnt is reduced to Rs 12 Lacs from Rs. 25 lacs - However, time period to make pre deposit is extended - Decided partly in favour of assessee. ......


2014 (4) TMI 147 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

M/s. Zeto Engineers Private Ltd. And Another Versus Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal And Others

Waiver of pre deposit - Quantum of pre deposit - manufacture of tractor parts - Held that - Amount requested by tribunal to make pre deposit is reduced to 1.5 Lacs from 3 lacs - However, time period to make pre deposit is extended - Decided conditionally in favour of assessee. ......


2014 (4) TMI 146 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissionerate, Delhi III, Gurgaon Versus M/s Leading Solution India P. Limited

Condonation of delay - Jurisdiction of tribunal - whether in case of delay in filing the appeal where the Committee of Chief Commissioner of Central Excise takes a decision to file an application to the Tribunal beyond the period of one month from the date of communication of the order in terms of section 35E( 4) of the Act, the Tribunal is competent to condone the delay for sufficient cause under Section 35B(5) of the Act - Held that - where an application is made by the Commissioner to the Tribunal in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) within a prescribed period from the date of communication of that order, such application shall be heard by the Tribunal as if it was an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicatin ......


2014 (4) TMI 145 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

M/s. Shree Labdhi Prints Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Surat

CENVAT Credit - Fraudulent CENVAT Credit taken - CENVAT credit taken was deposited before the issue of show cause notice - Penalty u/s 11AC - Bar of limitation - Held that - appellant was a party to the fraud committed in availing CENVAT credit on grey fabrics which was never received. Accordingly, CENVAT credit has been correctly denied by the lower authorities by invoking extended period - So far as extending the option of 25 percent reduced penalty under Section 11AC to the main appellant is concerned, it is observed that neither the adjudicating authority nor the first appellate authority has allowed this option to the main appellant. Accordingly, main appellant is allowed to avail the option of payment of 25 percent reduced penalty und ......


2014 (4) TMI 144 - CESTAT CHENNAI

MADRAS CEMENTS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, THIRUCHIRAPALLI

Denial of CENVAT credit - Original authority denied the credit holding that welding electrode used for repair and maintenance of machinery is not an eligible input to avail credit - Held that - appellant availed credit of duty paid on welding electrodes used for maintenance of their machinery. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that they have not stated the usage of the goods. It is also observed that the original authority rightly denied the credit on welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance of machinery. The learned consultant submits that they have stated the use of the goods in their reply to the show cause notice. In view of that, I find it is appropriate and proper in the interest of justice that the matter should be reman ......


2014 (4) TMI 143 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Albert David Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

Refund of pre-deposit - Interest on delayed refund - Held that - appellant was entitled to refund of pre-deposit within a period of 3 months from the passing of favorable order. Though the said refund was sanctioned but the same was adjusted against the outstanding demand. As such, for all practical purposes the amount of Rs. 75,000/- deposited by the appellant was not returned to them. Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Nijrang Print Pack Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI reported as 2002 (10) TMI 113 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD has in an identical circumstances held that the interest would be liable to be paid within a period of 3 months from passing of favorable orders. To the same effect is the decision of the Tribunal in the case of L T ......


2014 (4) TMI 142 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s. Uttar Pradesh Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Versus CCE, Lucknow

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether the appellant was entitled to take cenvat credit in respect of capital goods which was subjected to depreciation - Held that - Thus adjudicating authority was right to order inadmissibility of cenvat credit of Rs.3,72,349/-. It appears that on being pointed out there was reversal of the said credit in the account of the appellant. Adjudication order does not disclose whether the credit recorded in the books were at any time availed. In absence of any finding in that aspect there shall be neither interest nor penalty chargeable. BR BR There is no dispute by the appellant that it had wrongly availed such credit. But there was a reversal done after lapse of more than one year. Such huge period calls for pay ......


2014 (4) TMI 141 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Versus CCE, Lucknow

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that - From the findings of the Assistant Commissioner, which have been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that the steel items, in question, have been used for fabrication of various items of sugar mill machinery. There is also no dispute that sugar mill machinery is covered by Chapter 84 and hence its components would also be covered by the definition of capital goods, as given in Rule 2 (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is not the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that each and every item of machinery had come into existence as fixed to the earth structure. From the description of various items of component and machinery, as given in the order, it is clear that these items has been ......


2014 (4) TMI 140 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Versus CCE, Lucknow

Availment of CENVAT Credit - Held that - user of the steel items, in question, in fabrication of evaporation plant to reduce the quantity of affluent is not disputed and thus use of the steel items, in question, for fabrication of pollution control equipment stands accepted by the department. I find that in identical circumstances Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore II vs. SLR Steels Ltd. (2012 (9) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ) and the Apex Court judgment in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. (2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has held that the steel items used in fabrication of pollution control equipment would be eligible for Cenvat credit and the Cenvat credit cannot be den ......


2014 (4) TMI 139 - CESTAT BANGALORE

M/s ITI Limited. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin

Waiver of pre deposit - Interest on differential duty - Held that - amount of interest stands appropriated towards arrears of Revenue as per Order-in-Original passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Palakkad-I Division. He has also produced a copy of the said Order-in-Original. On a perusal of the said order, I find that an amount of Rs. 5,14,846/- demanded towards interest vide Order-in-Original No. 71/2010-CE dated 31.12.2010 read with corrigendum thereto dated 31.1.2011 has been appropriated towards other arrears of Revenue under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. It is also pointed out that Order-in-Original No. 25/2012 is presently under challenge before the Commissioner (Appeals) but its operation has not been staye ......


2014 (4) TMI 138 - CESTAT BANGALORE

M/s Sanghi Threads Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad

Waiver of pre-deposit - Denial of CENVAT Credit - duty paying document - endorsement on the face of Invoice by the Job workder - Denial of the credit is on the ground that the relevant invoices were not issued to the appellant by the manufacturer of inputs - Held that - I have perused Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004 and have found no mention of endorsed invoice in the list of documents prescribed under the Rule. I am not oblivious of the need to interpret the provisions harmoniously. But any provision so interpreted should be squarely applicable to the given factual situation so as to enable the appellant to claim CENVAT credit. If the manufacturer of inputs had issued the invoices to the appellant (principal manufacturer of final product) while se ......


2014 (4) TMI 137 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

UP Asbestos Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow

Waiver of pre deposit of duty - Denial of benefit of Cenvat credit of service tax paid on GTA services - Denial on the ground that appellants are directly selling their goods to their customers - Held that - there is a Board s circular No. 97/8/2007 ST dated 23.8.07 clarifying that the place of removal refers to depots / premises of the consignment agents or any other place or premises from where excisable goods are sold after their clearance from the factory. If the place of removal refers to the above places, the assessee would be entitled to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the GTA services used for the said purpose - Stay granted. ......


2014 (4) TMI 136 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

M/s SAVITA POLYMERS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI

Waiver of pre deposit - Clearance of goods on which cenvat credit was availed without reversing the entire amount of the cenvat credit that has been availed by assessee when he purchased the capital goods - Held that - appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, application for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal - Following decision of the case of Raghav Alloys (P) Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 294 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT - Stay granted. ......


.. ....6.... ..
 
 
 
what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.