Advanced Search options
Showing 101 to 120 of 50919 Records
Central Excise - Case Laws
.. ........ ..
2014 (4) TMI 333 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. N Rangarao & Sons Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - MYSORE
Waiver of pre-deposit - demand of duty on Captive consumption of agarbathi masala for manufacturing of agarbathi - valuation - Penalty under Rule 25 - Held that - in the absence of any proof to show that the earlier data was as per CAS-4 requirements and whether revised figure is not as per CAS-4 has not been considered. In our opinion, since the issue has heavy implication, these aspects need to be considered by the Commissioner in greater detail and if necessary the verification of details or whatever data required by the Commissioner can be called for and we feel that if the appellant has made a mistake while replying to the earlier show-cause notice and while defending the earlier show-cause notice and if the mistake is genuine, they sh ......
2014 (4) TMI 332 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s GOYAL TOBACCO CO PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I
Waiver of pre deposit - Packing of pouches of unmanufactured chewing tobacco bearing brand name Laxmi Chhap falling under chapter 24 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Machines not working - Held that - Difference of opinion - Matter referred to larger bench with following questions - BR BR Whether as per findings of learned Member (Judicial), full waiver of pre-deposit is to be granted in view of the facts that machines were not in working condition based on commissioners observation in para 99 in his adjudication order and provisions of deeming fiction was not attracted as per Chewing Tobacco Unmanufactured Tobacco Packing Machine (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2010. BR BR Or BR BR Whether as per findings of Memb ......
2014 (4) TMI 331 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Faith Innovations Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, & ST, Meerut I
Duty demand - job worker - area based exemption - non filing of declaration - Notification No. 50/2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 read with Notification No. 76/2003-C.E. Held that - identical issue was the subject matter in the stay petition in the case of M/s. Shivam Enterprises vs. CCE Chandigarh 2012 (11) TMI 821 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI wherein it stand held that once the above option stand exercised by the appellant, the technical objection of proper application having been filed subsequently cannot stand in the way of grant of substantial benefit - Stay granted. ......
2014 (4) TMI 330 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi III
Valuation of goods - Inclusion of pre-delivery inspection charges as also after sale charges in the assessable value of the cars sold by the appellant - Held that - Following the decision of assessees own previous case 2013 (1) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - Stay granted. ......
2014 (4) TMI 300 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s APOLLO TYRES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX - CALICUT
CENVAT Credit - input services - GTA service - sale of parts and accessories of tyres as such - reversal of proportionate credit - Suppression of facts - Mis declaration - Malafide intention - Held that - Proportionate credit attributable to trading arrived at in accordance with standard accounting principles is required to be reversed. - Decided against the assessee. BR BR Extended period of limitation - If the GTA service credit entry is reflected in return and the appellants have specifically written about their trading activity, it cannot be said that they have suppressed the facts. As regards miss-declaration, having regard to the size of the appellant and the fact that the appellant never took Cenvat credit of service tax attributable ......
2014 (4) TMI 299 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s APOLLO TYRES LTD. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - COCHIN-CCE
CENVAT Credit - Credit on tubes and flaps - parts and accessories of tyres - according to revenue, since the appellants were bringing these tubes and flaps as inputs in respect of the clearances made to OEMs and availing Cenvat credit, treating such clearances as clearances of inputs as such, the demand for differential duty (difference between the Cenvat credit taken and duty paid at the time of clearance) in respect of Trichur unit was made - Held that - The tyres in question are not tubeless tyres. They required inner tubes as an essential item for functioning, the flaps are also useful and make the functioning of the tyres more convenient and trouble free. Therefore, while tubes can as well find place as part of component of tyre, the f ......
2014 (4) TMI 298 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Dapson Engineers Pvt Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - MYSORE
SSI Exemption - whether DE is the dummy unit of DEPL - DE was availing SSI exemption - Clandestine removal of goods - Evasion of duty - Held that - boiler licence is in the name of DE and DE did have machinery and the labour required for manufacture. This is admitted by the Commissioner(Appeals) himself since he says machinery and labour to conduct the manufacturing activities were in the name of DE. However, other than observation that there was a door between the two units and labour was common, there is no evidence to show that the manufacture was undertaken by DEPL. If machinery and labour were in the name of DE and they were installed in the premises registered in the name of DE by the Revenue, question arises how could DEPL be conside ......
2014 (4) TMI 297 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. INAR Profiles Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Visakha Steel Allieds) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs - VISAKHAPATNAM-II
Availing exemption for goods manufactured on job work basis in the absence of undertaking given by the supplier manufacturer - Suppliers being SSI units and are not registered but are availing exemption under SSI exemption notification - Notification No.214/2006 or 83/94 - Held that - in the challans the SSI units who had supplied the raw materials had specifically stated that they are availing the benefit of SSI exemption Notification and, if and when, they cross the limits prescribed under Notification they would pay duty. - once the goods have been supplied under challan and properly accounted for by both the principal manufacturer and the job worker, the benefit of Notification No.83/94 CE cannot be denied on the ground that there was n ......
2014 (4) TMI 296 - CESTAT BANGALORE
M/s. Indofab Engineers Versus CC, CE&ST, Hyderabad-IV
Waiver of predeposit of CENVAT credit - Credit taken on bogus invoices - allegation of non receipt of inputs - Held that - In the absence of other evidences, only on the basis of the evidences of non-passing of the vehicles through the check-posts or the vehicle numbers mentioned in the invoices were incorrect, cannot be ground to deny the CENVAT credit, when the basis of sale is ex-delivery - applicant is able to make out prima facie case for total waiver of dues adjudged and accordingly predeposit of all dues adjudged is waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. ......
2014 (4) TMI 295 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Laxmi Impex Versus CCE Vapi
Clandestine removal - non accounting of manufactured goods in stock register - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - it is the case of the assessee that goods in question are already duty paid as procured from another party - Held that - exactly same quantity was received by the appellant from M/s Anant Syntex Ltd - the entire movement of the MMF fabrics from M/s Anant Syntex Ltd to the hands of the appellant have been properly recorded and all the documentary evidences were available. BR BR Revenue did not agree with the contentions that the said goods were duty paid on the ground that having paid the duty, the goods could not remain in the factory premises. In my considered view, this seems to be very irrational and illo ......
2014 (4) TMI 264 - CESTAT CHENNAI
DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI
Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - user of cement and steel in constructing foundation for a captive power plant - Held that - issue has been decided not only by Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)) but also by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs CCE Delhi - 2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . He also points out that the decision of Madras High Court in India Cements (2011 (8) TMI 399 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) was with reference to steel items which has gone into fabrication of specified machinery or parts of machinery and not for supporting structure. - since the issue has even been decided by Larger Bench and the Hon Apex Court agai ......
2014 (4) TMI 263 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CCE Vadodara Versus Parry Enterprises India Ltd.
Availment of CENVAT Credit - Service Tax paid by the insurance company on the group insurance taken by the respondent herein for his employees - Held that - first appellate authority, in this case, has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of HEG Limited 2009 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and allowed the benefit of CENVAT Credit and also has relied upon the decision of Honble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , to hold that the respondent therein are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the services rendered by insurance company on the group insurance taken by him for his employees - No reason to interfere with decision ......
2014 (4) TMI 262 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Parkashita Perforators
Option for payment of duty - SSI Exemption - whether the assessee has the option to avail exemption or pay duty on the final product by taking MODVAT credit on inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that - Following decision of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. M/S GRAND CARD INDUSTRIES ORS 2014 (4) TMI 258 - DELHI HIGH COURT - assessee would have the option either to avail the option in terms of the notification or pay duty on the final product by taking MODVAT credit on the inputs in terms of Rule 57A - decided against Revenue. ......
2014 (4) TMI 261 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Shingar Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & 3
Restoration of appeal - Appeal dismissed more than 16 years ago for non appearance - Assessee contends that no notice was dispatched to them - Lack of knowledge of dismissal - Held that - after such a long lapse of time, the issues cannot be reopened. Firstly, the dispatch register of the relevant time shows that communications were dispatched to the petitioners. Secondly, the Tribunal in its order dated 27.10.97 records that though served nobody appeared. Sixteen long years passed after this order was passed before petitioners applied to the Tribunal for recalling the order. Under normal circumstances, if the petitioners were not served with the notice of hearing, some delay in enquiring the progress in appeal and thereafter approaching th ......
2014 (4) TMI 260 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Shri Deepak F Shah Versus CCE., Ahmedabad I and M/s Shree Chem Intermediates
Shortage of finished goods - Clandestine removal of goods - benefit of Cum Duty price - Duty demand - Penalty u/s 11AC - Commissioner allowed credit holding that inputs corresponding to this credit were actually used in the manufacture of clandestinely cleared goods - Held that - Revenue has not given detailed reasons for rejecting the respondent s plea. The probable reasons could be that the quantity 5,735.550 Kg. (value Rs. 7,85,770/-) of finished goods DASA did not tally with any combination of parallel invoices on record. There is also nothing on record to show that the respondent failed to correlate these details when called upon to do so by the Range Superintendent. The period of dispute is from December, 1999 to 23.03.2001, and in th ......
2014 (4) TMI 259 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Ram Kumar Industries Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST Surat-II
Condonation of delay - Non receipt of copy of the OIA - Held that - appellant has not given any proper address to the lower authorities despite having knowledge that his factory is closed and also did not avail the opportunity of personal hearings, granted by the lower authorities, it seems that he had committed himself of not cooperating with the authorities. Secondly, having been not co-operative with the authorities, today, the appellant/applicant cannot claim that the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal be condoned which, in our view, is a prayer which needs to be discarded for the reason that appellant was made aware of the Order-in-Appeal dt. 26.2.2007 by the department on pasting the same at his last known address. Thirdly ......
2014 (4) TMI 258 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Grand Card Industries & Others
Option for payment of duty - SSI Exemption - Whether the option is available to the Assessee either to avail the exemption or to pay duty on the final product by taking modvat credit on inputs in terms of Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The stand of the Revenue that since the respondent was a SSI Unit and covered under the Notification No.1/93 and clearance of goods upto a value of Rs.30 lakhs was exempted from payment of duty, the benefit of MODVAT scheme could not be availed in terms of Rule 57C is counter productive and not beneficial for the respondent Assessee. It works against them and makes them in-competitive and places them at a disadvantage. BR BR Held that - The object of the MODVAT Scheme is to reduce cost of final ......
2014 (4) TMI 230 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CCE Vadodara Versus Gujarat Flurochemicals Ltd.
Availment of CENVAT CRedit - Service Tax paid by the insurance company on the group insurance taken by the respondent herein for his employees - Held that - first appellate authority, in this case, has relied upon the judgment of Division Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of HEG Limited 2009 (6) TMI 244 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI and allowed the benefit of CENVAT Credit and also has relied upon the decision of Honble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , to hold that the respondent therein are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on the services rendered by insurance company on the group insurance taken by him for his employees - No reason to interfere with decision ......
2014 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT MUMBAI
KELTECH ENERGIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Rectification of mistake - valuation - inclusion of freight charges - Held that - The adjudicating authority in his order has observed that the appellant did not mention the freight charges in the invoices issued and raised debit notes on the buyer of the goods. In appeal, the lower appellate authority, on perusal of the sample invoice, came to the conclusion that the invoice did indicate the freight charges and, therefore, the adjudicating authority was in error - Matter already remanded back - Rectification denied. ......
2014 (4) TMI 227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CCE, Vadodara-I Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Whether the Respondent Assessee is entitled to refund claim of the excess duty paid on the discounts which were given to M/s. L T, but which were not reflected in the invoice in favour of M/s.L T as the same was not updated in their statement for the period from 1/4/2008 to 26/05/2008 and duty was discharged on such discount amount - Held that - Commissioner (A) has considered all records which were produced before him to justify as to non -passing of the incident of duty by assessee to their purchaser. I have also perused these two certificates which very clearly establish that the appellant was not paid by M/s. L T for the amount of refund claimed by them. I also find that in the identical situ ......
.. ........ ..