Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
 
 

Central Excise Case Laws

 

Filter -


 
Showing 31606 to 31620 of 54284 Records

    2002 (1) TMI 1039 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    SRIRAM KAIYAUN MACHINE TOOLS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., NEW DELHI

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Declaration - Penalty - Evidence - Document ......

    ........... It further appears from the record that, in the appeal preferred by the assessee to the Commissioner (Appeals), they had specifically submitted that they had filed an application for condonation of delay on 29-10-99. This claim of the party has not been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has fairly noted that the delay of filing the declaration is only 16 days and that the credit should not be denied merely on the ground that the declaration was filed late. This finding of the lower appellate authority is obviously one recorded in acceptance of the Modvat declaration after condonation of its delay. Once such a decision is taken, there is no longer any contravention of Rule 57G. Any contravention of that Rule by the assessee stands obliterated by the above decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the absence of contravention of Rule 57G, there is no question of sustaining the penalty. Accordingly, I set aside the penalty and allow this appeal.

    2002 (1) TMI 1037 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    IOC. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA

    Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing ......

    ........... plicants/appellants for this delay. He, therefore, prays that the Application for condoning the delay may be rejected. 3. emsp We have heard the Representative of the applicant/appellant company as also the DR. We note that they had given the address of the applicants/appellants as Indian Oil Corporation, Barauni. From the records placed before us, we note that the impugned Order was sent at the address communicated by the applicants/appellants. Thus there was no mistake in sending the communication at the correct address. 4. emsp The Representative of the applicant/appellant company could not satisfactorily explain the delay. The reason given by them was that Indian Oil Corporation is a huge organisation and it took time to reach the concerned person. This explanation is not satisfactory for condoning the delay of seven months. In the circumstances, the Application for condonation of delay is rejected. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Stay Petition also gets disposed of.

    2002 (1) TMI 1036 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR Versus MONNET ISPAT LTD.

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... achines or machinery or the like, these plates will form lsquo parts rsquo of machinery etc. and will be covered by Clause (b) of Explanation (1) ibid. The decision in Rosa Sugar Works (supra) is clearly on the question whether plates, bars or rods used for repairing damaged parts of machinery can be held to be eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. These items have been held to be eligible capital goods in the cited case. In Century Cements (supra), dust collecting bags/filter bags used for collecting dust for prevention of air pollution have been held to be parts of the manufacturing plant and hence eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q. This decision appears to be supportive of the respondent rsquo s case in relation to Filter Bags and Timer Valve. The uses of the various goods not being under challenge, the goods in question must be held to be eligible capital goods and, accordingly, the order of the lower appellate authority has to be sustained. The appeals are rejected.

    2002 (1) TMI 1035 - CEGAT, KOLKATA

    MACMET INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-III

    Demand - Manufacture ......

    ........... hat the ld. Consultant had brought to our notice a number of invoices, gate passes and challans which showed that the appellant had been sending the goods direct to the site of erection of the equipment. These documents were not available at the time of decision before the Commissioner or they were not taken into consideration by the Commissioner while deciding the issue. Since these documents are important for coming to the conclusion we consider it a fit case for remand. In the circumstances we direct the Commissioner concerned to examine these documents i.e. invoices, challans, gate passes etc. showing payment of duty and transport of goods. We also direct the Commissioner to examine the facts of the case in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Triveni Engg. Co. cited above. 14. emsp Having regard to the above findings and contentions the miscellaneous application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

    2002 (1) TMI 1033 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUS., BELGAUM Versus VISHAL COTSPIN LTD.

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... in disallowing the Modvat credit on Weighing Machine and Hydraulic Hand Pallet Trucks under Rule 57Q was set aside and the appeal filed by the party was allowed accordingly. 3. emsp We find that the issue involved herein has been covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.). It is also pointed out by the Departmental Representative, Shri Narasimha Murthy, that the issue with reference to above capital goods has already been considered by the Tribunal prior to the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. referred to above in the case of Commissioner of C. Excise, Nagpur v. Indo Rama Synthetics India Ltd. reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 481 (T). 4. emsp Since the issue with reference to eligibility of Modvat credit on the above items as capital goods has already been considered and concluded by the aforesaid decision, we do not find any substance in the appeal filed by the Revenue. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

    2002 (1) TMI 1031 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    RS. INDUSTRIES (RM) LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAIPUR

    Modvat/Cenvat ......

    ........... to the proceedings. The same view is held in the aforesaid cited two case laws. It is observed in these decisions that, ldquo M/s. SAIL depot as a dealer have committed any irregularity in passing off the Modvat credit to the manufacturers then they should have made party to the proceedings. rdquo This being the position on facts and in law, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority to issue a notice and make M/s. SAIL depot as party to the proceedings spelling out the charges relating to the excess passing on of the Modvat credit to the appellants giving all the evidence on which such allegation is based. This would enable M/s. SAIL depot to contest the allegation of passing on the excess amount of the Modvat credit. Both the sides shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter. 5. emsp The appeals are thus allowed by remand in the above terms.

    2002 (1) TMI 1030 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-II Versus MYSORE CEMENTS LTD.

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on HSD ......

    ........... led by the party for allowing the credit such appeal was not maintainable as it was rightly pointed out by the Departmental Representative. In fact in the case of Chemo Pulp Tissues referred to above, since the appeal was filed by the party, the Tribunal has taken the view holding that ldquo In view of this provision contained in the Finance Act, we do not find any justification for entertaining these appeals. rdquo Further I do not find any ambiguity in the provision to be held in favour of the Assessee. In the present case, the appeal is filed by the Revenue for reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and to disallow the credit and accordingly the appeal as such is maintainable in my view. Accordingly the appeal is admitted and following the ratio of the decision of Chemo Pulp Tissues, I hold that HSD oil is not eligible input to avail Modvat credit. In the result, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeals are allowed accordingly.

    2002 (1) TMI 1027 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    ESSAR STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

    Confiscation, penalty and redemption fine ......

    ........... ption fine and penalty therefor. He has relied upon the decision in the case of Balmer Lawrie and Co. Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 364 of the Larger Bench in support his contention. 5. emsp We find substance in the submissions made by the learned SDR that the explanation given by the appellant has been completely denied by M/s. Hero Cycles and as such no explanation is forthcoming from the appellants as to how the excisable goods were removed on 11-1-1999 under the cover of invoices dated 30-12-1998. As such the goods in question were not cleared under valid invoices. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order as far as confiscation of the impugned goods is concerned. However, we find that the redemption fine and penalty imposed is on the higher side. We are of the view that the interest of justice will satisfy if the appellants are directed to pay redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty amounting to Rs. 5 lakhs. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.

    2002 (1) TMI 1025 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    ATMA TUBE PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs ......

    ........... ufacturer of the final products shall maintain - (a) emsp an account in Form RG 23A, Parts I and II (b) emsp in respect of duty payable on final products, an account current with adequate balance to cover the duty of excise payable on the final product cleared at any time. rdquo 4. emsp In the present appeal it is not the case of the appellants that the entry in Part-I was left to be made on account of an oversight or due to some clerical mistake. The appellants wish to assert that as a matter of right they need not make any entry in Part-I of their Form RG 23A. Such proposition cannot be accepted in view of the aforestated clear provisions of the Rule. Besides, there are also very clear findings in the orders of both the lower authorities that there is no proof showing that the goods have actually been received in the factory of the appellants and have been consumed in the manufacture of final product. The appeal therefore, has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

    2002 (1) TMI 1023 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    JATIN TRACKS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on inputs - Deemed credit ......

    ........... ts to pay interest on the delayed payment of duty before clearing the inputs from their factory premises rdquo . Ld. Counsel submitted that the ratio of this decision of the Tribunal squarely covers their case. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 4. emsp Shri D.N. Choudhary, ld. DR reiterates the findings of the authorities below. 5. emsp On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case law cited by the appellant, we note that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of the case cited and relied upon by the Counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, find that the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Jagan Tubes squarely covers the present case. Following the ratio of that decision, we hold that Modvat credit was correctly taken by the appellant. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.

    2002 (1) TMI 1022 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus RATLAM PETRO PRODUCTS

    Exemption - Denial of, on new ground - Benefit under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. ......

    ........... al, the revenue want to deny the benefit of notification on the ground that the declaration, filed under rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, was received on 5-4-99. Therefore, the respondents were entitled for the benefit of this notification only from 5-4-99. This issue was never raised by the revenue in the show cause notice nor before the lower authorities. Therefore, now the revenue cannot deny the benefit of notification on the new ground, which was never mentioned in the show cause notice nor agitated before the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. emsp The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Indore v. Busimen Offset Printers (P) Ltd. reported in 2001 (137) E.L.T. 100 (T) 2001 (46) RLT 521 held that it is not necessary that option to avail the exemption under Notification 9/99 should be given in a separate letter and it can be exercised in the classification list. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.

    2002 (1) TMI 1015 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    PS. HUNJAN & BROTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH

    Modvat/Cenvat - Invoice, dealerís invoice ......

    ........... acturer rsquo s name and number and date of invoices were not furnished in the invoices. I find that the particulars stated in the BPCL rsquo s (dealer rsquo s) invoices were sufficient to correlate the inputs covered thereby to the particulars stated in the IOCL rsquo s (manufacturer rsquo s) invoices on the basis of which the dealer rsquo s invoices had been raised. As regards the two IOCL invoices (copies available in the appeal file) No. 500309, dated 11-10-95 and No. 500362, dated 26-10-95, I find that these were invoices issued under Rule 52A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These are manufacturer rsquo s invoices and are found to contain all the necessary details. Apparently, the lower appellate authority has not applied its mind to these invoices and has wrongly treated these invoices at par with the BPCL invoices under Rule 57GG. 7. emsp In the light of the above findings and following the Larger Bench decision, I set aside the impugned order and allow this appeal.

    2002 (1) TMI 1014 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    TRILOCHAN STEELS & ALLOYS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., ALLAHABAD

    Production capacity based duty - Ingots ......

    ........... od. The third suggestion given by the learned Counsel is that the appellants are even prepared to pay the duty for the entire disputed period on the basis of the last verification report dated 15-3-2001. We find that these suggestions given by the learned Counsel for determining the ACP and duty liability of the appellants once for all, for the disputed period, as the dispute is going on since the introduction of the Compound Levy Scheme in the year 1997 and that Scheme has even ceased to exist also, deserve to be considered by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority for re-determining the ACP and duty liability of the appellants keeping in view the above referred suggestions/offers made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants before us after hearing them. 8. emsp In view of the discussion made above, the appeal of the appellants is allowed by way of remand.

    2002 (1) TMI 1011 - CEGAT, BANGALORE

    SREE SGK. INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE

    Modvat/Cenvat - Modvat on capital goods ......

    ........... other words Modvat is admissible on capital goods i.e D.G. Set to the extent power has been utilized in the factory of the manufacturer. Proportionate Modvat is admissible. By interpreting the provision of Rule 57R(2) referred to above I hold that credit of specific duty shall be allowed in respect of capital goods used for generation of electricity used within the factory of production of manufacture of final products and not elsewhere. Proportionate Modvat credit has to be worked out by the adjudicating authority on hearing the party and to pass an order by giving such relief. 7. emsp As regards penalty and interest since the cause of action took place prior to the insertion of penal provisions the same cannot be subject matter of penalty under the relevant provisions accordingly I set aside the penalty as well as the interest following the ratio of the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Elgi Equipments Ltd. (supra). Thus this appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

    2002 (1) TMI 1009 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI

    ECO PRODUCTS INDIA (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA

    Modvat/Cenvat - Declaration - Delay in filing ......

    ........... regard would not be far to seek. Obviously since the original declaration did not contain correct tariff heading of the goods, it necessitated the appellants to file a fresh declaration on receipt of the goods. One of the objection raised by the Dy. Commissioner is that the party failed to elaborate in their condonation application the inputs on which the condonation was sought. The appellants have filed a copy of their revised declaration in which the full description and the classification of the inputs is given. In view of these facts, therefore, both the grounds raised in the order of the original authority for refusing to condone the delay in accepting the revised declaration do not seem to be tenable. In view of the facts and circumstances, the request for condoning the delay in filing the declaration in terms of the relevant provisions of the rules should have been admitted. The appeal is thus allowed setting aside the impugned order with consequential relief, if any.

   
 
 
 
what is new what is new





© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.