Advanced Search options
Showing 101 to 120 of 50018 Records
Central Excise - Case Laws
.. ........ ..
2014 (3) TMI 3 - CESTAT MUMBAI
PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Valuation of goods - Valuation of physician samples - Valuation u/s 4 as transaction value or u/s 4A as MRP - Held that - it is admitted fact in the cases in hand that these physician samples were cleared by the appellant on principle to principle basis on a transaction value, which was admissible at the time of clearance of the physician samples, than the transaction value is to be determined as per Section 4 (1) (a) of the Act - Following decision in the case of Themis Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (2) TMI 713 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - Decided in favour of assessee. ......
2014 (3) TMI 2 - CESTAT MUMBAI
PRIYADARSHINI POLYSACKS LTD Versus CCE
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Credit taken on the endorsed invoices - Held that - Credit was taken on the basis of invoices endorsed by a whole sale dealer wherein in this case the facts are totally different as invoice has been issued on unit No.1 which is a sister unit and the goods have been transferred to Unit NO. 2 therefore the first unit endorsed the invoices of their Unit No.2. In the case of Coimbatore Murugan Mills (2003 (3) TMI 227 - CEGAT, CHENNAI) this Tribunal held that if there is transfer of goods between the same appellant in different units, credit can be taken on the basis of endorsed invoices. In this term, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take credit - Decided in favour of assessee. ......
2014 (3) TMI 1 - CESTAT MUMBAI
THE BOMBAY DYEING & MFG CO LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Demand of interest - Cenvat Credit on capital goods when finished goods exempted later - Interest for the intervening period - Capital Goods cleared later - Held that - when the capital goods were procured by the appellant they were entitled to take credit and product was dutiable. Although the product became duty free on 09.07.2004 but there was no bar for capital goods to reverse the credit on said date and thus capital goods have been cleared on payment of duty. As there is no duty liability on 09.07.2004, the appellants were not required to pay interest for the intervening period - Decided in favour of assessee. ......
2014 (2) TMI 1101 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-II Versus The Creations
Denial of refund claim of predeposit - Clearance of goods in excess of the limit prescribed - Exemption Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Section 11A(2B) - exteneded period of limitation - Held that - revenue department s argument stems from its understanding that the refund claim was not tenable in view of Section 11A(2B) and that the demand could have been made during the extended period by virtue of Section 11A without issuing a notice. However, a careful reading of the appeal grounds would indicate that the plea of the assessee was that the facts found were not such so as to indicate fraud or misrepresentation as to attract the main provisions of Section 11A. Viewed from that perspective, there is no infirmity with the findi ......
2014 (2) TMI 1100 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M/s. Shrivatsa International Ltd. (Previously Galaxy Indo Fab) Versus Addl. Commissioner, Central Excise
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty - Held that - since the Additional Commissioner Central Excise has adjudicated upon the issue of liability, at this stage there is no occasion to doubt it particularly by this Court where the issue is not for decision on merit. Therefore, in safeguard of the interest of the Revenue, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretionary power which does not require interference of this Court - Petitioner is permitted to make pre deposit in installments - Decided partly in favour of assessee. ......
2014 (2) TMI 1099 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M/s. Brindawan Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise
Cenvat Credit - Use of capital goods to manufacture exempted goods - Demand u/s 11A - Extended period of limitation - Held that - Machine which was installed in the factory was used both for manufacture of exempted goods as well as dutiable goods. Dutiable goods were manufactured since October, 2006 which fact has been noted in Paragraph No. 8 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had denied the benefit on the pretext that the certificate of the manufacturer relied upon by the appellant also confirms that the plant is usable for manufacture of aerated waters only after modification - The manufacture had certified that machine is designed to handle carbonated/aerated soft drinks by software changes and minor adjustments. The certific ......
2014 (2) TMI 1098 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. Kusum Products Ltd.
Penalty u/s 11AC read with Rule 25(1) - Suppression of facts - Willful misstatement or fraud or evasion of duty - Held that - The Commissioner came to the finding that there was no willful misstatement or fraud or any contravention or any evasion of duty nor was there any suppression of fact. The aforesaid view of the Commissioner was upheld by the learned Tribunal. The question whether there has been any willful misstatement or fraud or any contravention or any evasion of duty or there is any suppression of fact are essentially questions of fact. These questions are concluded by the views expressed by the learned Tribunal. There is no question of law involved in this appeal - Decided against Revenue. ......
2014 (2) TMI 1097 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Kundan Castings Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there can be a deemed service of the order on the appellant merely because it was sent under registered cover and no acknowledgment was received more so than there was a specific rebuttal in the form of affidavit filed by the appellant - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that - since the appellant was heard through its representative by the Commissioner (Appeals) after which the appellate order was passed on 23 November 2009, the appellant ought to have checked up with the office of the Commissioner (Appeals), if the order was not received. This in our view, begs the question of when the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was communicated. Once the legislature has stipulated that the period o ......
2014 (2) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
APG FOOD PRODUCTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Supplier of input has wrongly paid duty - Whether activity of appellant amounts to manufacture - Held that - credit cannot be denied on the ground that activity undertaken by the supplier of input did not amount to manufacture. In these circumstances, as the supplier of input is not party to the present proceeding and the assessment cannot be reopened at the recipient end - Following decision of C.C.E., Delhi-III v. Neel Metal Products Ltd. 2009 (1) TMI 155 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee. ......
2014 (2) TMI 1095 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CLASSIC MARBLES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI
Classification - leviability of duty on processed imported natural marble slabs - whether the imported natural marble blocks, imported agglomerated blocks and imported marble slabs after being subjected to processes such as cutting or sawing into slabs, fibre backing, resin filling, polishing and further edging etc. are classifiable under CSH No. 2515 12 20, 6810 19 90 and 6802 21 90 of Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by assessee or would merit same classification under CSH No. 6802 19 00, 6810 99 90 and 6802 91 00 of Customs Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as contended by the Revenue - Held that - activities carried out by the appellants prior to 1-3-2006, would not amount to manufacture. From 1-3-2006, the goods in question are class ......
2014 (2) TMI 1094 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)
THERMOTECH Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearance - two units held by husband and wife separately - Clandestine Removal - Held that - Held that - adjudicating authority has nowhere referred to any mutuality of interest between the units of husband and units owned by wife. He has observed that lack of mutuality of interest or financial flow back can be only one of the important consideration but cannot be made sole basis for arriving at the decision. Merely because the two owners of the units were husband and wife and the profits earned by them came into same household, does not mean that clearances of all the units is required to be clubbed. BR BR All the units were separately registered with income tax as also sales tax authorities. Their locations of ......
2014 (2) TMI 1093 - CESTAT KOLKATA
SHREE LAXMI IRON & STEEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-II
Duty demand - Availment of Cenvat credit on RAILS falling under Chapter 73 of CETA - Held that - appellant availed Cenvat credit on Rails as capital goods. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Fish Plates, etc. They have to send the material in the furnace and hot rolled fish plates come after moving on the Rails. Therefore the rolls are the components of the capital goods and they rightly fall under the purview of capital goods. The Department could not produce any evidence that these rolls are used for structural or for installation purposes. Therefore, they are eligible for Cenvat credit. The appellant have paid the interest on the 50 percent of the Cenvat credit availed by them as they were not entitled for full 100 percent ......
2014 (2) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., MEERUT-I
Collection of Excise duty from the customers, on account of fluctuation in rates of the petroleum products on the stocks lying at various depots - Demand u/s 11D - assessee being only a dealer and not a manufacturer - Held That - It is clear that the petroleum products being marketed by the appellant depot had been manufactured by various oil companies. We also find that the provisions of Section 11D are applicable only to the person liable to pay the duty who in respect of any goods sold has collected from his customers an amount in excess of duty assessed and paid on the goods. This provision obviously would not be applicable to a dealer who sells the duty paid goods purchased from other manufacturers. The appellant, a HPCL Depot were adm ......
2014 (2) TMI 1057 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
JK. METAL INDUS. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., PANCHKULA (HARYANA)
Manufacture of aluminium utensils - SSI Exemption or concessional rate of duty vide Notification No. 10/2002 - Captive consumption - Sometimes utensils are directly made from the sheets or some times sheets are further cut into circles which are used in the manufacture of utensils. Some of the articles like handles to be attached to the utensils are made by the casting process - Held that - duty was being paid on the circles which are captively consumed as they were clearing the utensils free of duty. If the lower authorities comes to a finding that benefit of notification is not available to the appellant and the utensils are leviable to duty, the circles would become exempt on account of captively consumption Notification No. 67/95. The d ......
2014 (2) TMI 1056 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, RAIPUR
Denial of CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - delay in availing credit - Department has denied the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the ground that the bills of entry are in the names of ABB Ltd. and original of which are not available - Held that - Rule 9(1)(a)(ii) that any invoice issued for importer is admissible documents for CENVAT credit. In the present case, the appellants are having importer s invoices showing the amount of duty on which they are seeking CENVAT credit. I, therefore, find no reason in denying the CENVAT credit to the appellants on the basis of the importer invoices. As regards second ground of denying credit on ground of delay in taking credit, there is no time-frame mentioned in the CENVAT Credit Rules in avai ......
2014 (2) TMI 1055 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-II Versus ADITYA CEMENT
Availment of CENVAT Credit - Whether the radio active material (californlum - 252) used in fast lab analyzer is a eligible capital goods or not - Held that - appellants had pleaded before the adjudicating authority that the item in question is a component of Fastlab Analyzer, and in fact without this component the said analyzer cannot function at all. The appellants had also submitted the brochure of the Fastlab Analyzer, published by the manufacturer, which clearly shows the impugned item, namely One to three Cf252 neutron sources as a component of the Fastlab Analyzer, and in the sketch the location of the same has also been indicated very clearly. The adjudicating authority has not contradicted above submissions of the appellants in the ......
2014 (2) TMI 1054 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH Versus CHAMPION INDUSTRIES
Benefit of SSI exemption - brand name of others - extended period of limitation - Held that - Though the earlier show cause notice was in respect of seizure of goods, seized on the date of visit of officers, but we note that during the relevant period, use of brand name of others on goods different than the one manufactured by the brand name owner was held to be permissible by various decisions of Tribunal. Even if we accept the Revenue s contention that the said brand name belonged to reputed manufacturer, they have not shown anything to establish that the said brand names were being used by their owners in respect of Transmission rubber belting. As various decisions during the relevant period had laid down that use of brand name of others ......
2014 (2) TMI 1053 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
M/s. Dabur India Ltd. Versus CCE Vapi
Denial of cenvat credit - Availment of cenvat credit distributed by head office as inputs service distributor - Held that - Adjudication order seems to have been passed in a hurry without considering the submissions made by the appellants herein in their letter dated 18.01.13. Since we are of the view that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, we allow the stay petitions filed and take up the appeals themselves for disposal - appellant herein had filed a written submission on 18.01.13 raising various grounds in their defence on merits as well as on limitation. Obviously, the impugned order which was passed on 27.12.12 could not have considered these written submission given by the appellants in their de ......
2014 (2) TMI 1052 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BHOPAL Versus BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.
Disallowance of MODVAT Credit - Credit on hydraulic jack, ammonia paper and parts of locomotive - Held that - in respect of hydraulic jack which is an item supplied with power transformers. It is used for lifting of the transformer tank, in order to move it on rails for changing oil in the event of short circuit fault. It is necessarily supplied against each order for transformer - assessee is entitled to avail the Modvat credit, in respect of excise duty paid on kits. In Daewoo Motors India Ltd. 2000 (6) TMI 96 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI this Tribunal was considering whether the value of tool kits is to be incorporated in the assessable value of the motor vehicle - No infirmity in the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Cent ......
2014 (2) TMI 1051 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s GEM GRANITES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
100 percent EOU - Clearance of goods upto 50 percent of FOB value of the exports into Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by availing concessional rate of duty under Notification No.23/2003-CE dated 31.3.2003 as amended - use of duty-free imported raw materials / inputs like rough granite blocks, multi-colour granites, abrasives, tin oxide powder for the manufacture of finished goods cleared in DTA - Held that - the Commissioner observed the allegation of non-fulfillment of the condition of exemption under Sl. No.3A of the said Notification has not been contested by the applicant - applicant failed to make out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit of entire amount of duty along with interest - Conditional stay granted. ......
.. ........ ..