Click here for List of all cases of Central Excise

Total - 2334

Entitlement to deemed credit - assessee is manufacturer of knitted garments has given declaration on under Rule 9A - on facts, the appellate authority has accepted the explanation of the assessee that there were no uncounted goods in the factory and that there was no evasion of duty. There is nothing to hold the said finding to be perverse – tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of appellate authority – no substantial questions of law arise – deemed credit entitled

Whether ethylene and propylene manufactured by assessee and used in the further manufacture of the same goods would be entitled to exemption under notification no.217/86 - Tribunal's finding that the ethylene and propylene used as refrigerant has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the same goods - inevitable and automatic emergence of ethane and methane can’t be a ground for denying the exemption - no interference is called for in the well reasoned order of the Tribunal

HC has given a categorical finding on merits holding that there is nothing to show that goods are liable to confiscation -HC appears to have decided the matter finally, even though that was not the stage for doing so and was beyond the scope of adjudication of the writ petition - HC has not indicated any reason as to why the condition of execution of indemnity bond and furnishing of bank guarantee, as was stipulated by the authorities, was not justified – order of HC is set aside

Whether the respondent’s product branded “POLEYOL FSO” was to be classified u/h 34.02 as an ‘organic surface active agent’ as claimed by them or u/h 34.03 as a ‘fat liquor’ as claimed by revenue - “POLEYOL FSO” is manufactured by mixing imported ‘Sulphonated Fish Oil’ with water – revenue not proved that surface active property of manufactured product is not required or as only subsidiary to its main function – claim of classification of respondents u/h 34.02 is upheld

Notification no. 33/99 giving area based exemption if expansion of installed capacity take place before the notified date – what was date of substantial expansion - Director of Industries at the material time, was also a Nominee Director of Respondent Company - there was a conflict of interest in the two roles he played - Held that a fresh report is required to be called for from the Department of Industries - matter should be examined by a person who has no interest in the Respondent Company

Credit on basis of extra copy of invoices & on basis of invoices baring type/hand written serial numbers, not admissible – credit can’t be denied when invoices bear computer generated serial numbers or if invoices have pre-printed numbers – credit not deniable even if availed after period of 6 months if credit is availed on basis of certificate issued u/r 57E – matter remanded for credit denied in respect of inputs not accompanied by invoice, short received inputs & return of inputs to supplier

It is alleged that the bought out spares brought into their factory are neither utilized in the manufacture of the transformer nor brought into factory for utilization in the manufacture of the final product. Hence, the Cenvat credit is not admissible on them - Held that duty paid on spares by way of the debit in the Modvat account should be treated as the reversal of the inadmissible credit taken and, therefore, no demand would lie.

Goods became unfit for consumption/marketing due to riot took places in factory – remission of duty claimed - Commissioner finding that the assessee had been negligent in safeguarding its finished products is not reasonable as the assessee’s stake in the excisable goods was much higher than the stake of the revenue - finding of the Commissioner that the assessee did not foresee the probability of damage to its finished goods is a finding without any basis – remission of duty not deniable

Refund claimed for excess payment of duty due to calculation error – applicability of principle of unjust enrichment on refund - Revenue has not controverted the certificate of the purchaser and certificate of the Chartered Accountant. It is settled law that if the assessee has not received the amount from the suppliers, it cannot be held, that the appellant will be unjustly enriched - impugned order is not sustainable – refund allowed

Appellants secretly showing its own production of C.I. castings in name of another company (M/s. Reliable) to remain in exemption limit of Rs. 1 crore – recovery of sale bills of another Industries from appellant’s factory - M/s. Reliable Industries was not having any facility to manufacture of C.I. casting – both units are separate legal entities - question involved is not relatable to clubbing of clearances but to compute the clearances of the assessee - demand, interest, penalty is upheld

Respondents had paid duty on fortnightly basis when that facility was denied to them as per the statutory provisions - They also discharged part of the duty (25%) from deemed credit - respondents had contravened the provisions of Rule 8(4) of the Central Excise (No.2) Rules, 2001 by not discharging the duty on consignment basis - As the respondents had met the duty liability from deemed credit & from PLA, penalty is justified for impugned procedural non-compliance

Appellant is a manufacturer-exporter - appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cotton fabrics from the input cotton yarn - appellants claimed refund being the unutilized CENVAT credit accumulated on account of exports by them – export of fabrics after process of finishing and packing - original authority rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the appellants had exported bought out material without subjecting them to any manufacturing process, is not justified - refund allowed

Issue pertains to valuation of raw material partly got manufactured on job- work and partly purchased – intermediate goods cleared to sister unit by valuing them on cost construction method – department enhanced value of clearances by adopting peak prices from on the buyers – held that action of department is no correct because weighted average price of inputs procured form different sources should be adopted for valuation – assessee’s appeal allowed

Received goods back for re-conditioning or remaking - officers entertained a view that the credit availed by the appellant is required to be reversed - due procedure under the law was followed by them in availing the credit, which was required to be reversed only at the time of removal of the goods - admittedly the goods were still lying in the factory premises, no mala fide intention can be attributed to the appellant for evading any duty so as to justifiably invoke the penal action

Assessee unit had ceased to function and the factory was closed - They had also surrendered the Central Excise registration certificate - respondents is not in a position to utilize Modvat credit if the refund due to them is allowed by way of credit - assessee had no cenvat account in which refund could be credited, hence assessee could be sanctioned refund by cheque/cash – held that there is no bar against payment of refund originally paid from the cenvat account in cheque/cash

Clandestine removal of goods – allegation of non-payment of duty – seizure of goods along with vehicle – goods not entered in assessee’s accounts – no any statutory transport document - appellants admitted clandestine activity – confiscation, redemption fine, penalty and interest is upheld

Duty paid by the job worker on repair charges – capital goods not received back in premises of principal manufacturer-respondent -- principal manufacturer taking credit of duty paid by his job-worker on capital goods (Dies) mere on basis of invoices is correct – credit is admissible – larger period not invokable for raising demand

Area based exemption - benefit of exemption Notification No. 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-99 denied on the ground that assessee have not carried out 25% expansion in the installed capacity - Chartered Engineer having proceeded in this matter has come to a conclusion that the respondents have exceeded the installed capacity by over 40% - Denial of exemption mere for the fact that capacity of drawing section was not increased is not justified

Goods destroyed during riots – held that the setting ablaze of the factory by a mob during riots was an unavoidable accident – revenue submission that the goods have not been lost or destroyed on account of any natural causes, is not accepted – incase of unavoidable accidents, remission cannot be denied - demand confirmed before remission application was decided - in the absence of decision on the remission application, appellate authority was not justified in setting aside the demand

Reversal of credit sought on ground that respondent had written off the value of the unserviceable or damaged raw material, packing material thereof from the books of account – revenue submitted that said goods could not have been used in manufacture of finished goods - since inputs are still lying in the factory and not removed from factory, reversal of credit sought on above ground is not justified – revenue’s appeal is rejected