New User / Register | Annual Subscription | SMS Option | Feedback |
Login: Stay
| Forget Password |
Tax Management India .com
             
TMI - Tax Management India. Com

Search in Case Laws

Refine Search / Filter

Case Laws
Text
Search as Search in: -

Filter [Optional]
Include In:
Date From To DD-MM-YYYY
Law - Section [Only for Income Tax]
Court - City
Exclude

OR
TMI Citation
or TMI - ID

To use various search filters - clik the link Refine Search / Filter above

Search Results

Help - Case Laws Search

Showing 521 to 535 of 2178 Records

   

521

2004 (2) TMI 592 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

POYSHA INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-III

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Bill of entry, endorsed bill of entry

.......... arehouse on ex-bond bill of entry have been duly received in the appellants factory. Modvat credit cannot be denied on such goods. We also observe that the Commissioner rsquo s second contention that since goods have not actually been removed from the premises Modvat credit is not admissible is not correct. In this case the appellants have explained as to why the goods were sold to M/s. TCIL, how a gate pass has been prepared and why the goods have not been actually dispatched. We find strength in the appellants rsquo argument that the goods have not been actually removed because they have to be received back into their factory for manufacture of finished goods on job work basis in any case. The mere fact that the goods on which duty has been paid has not been removed from the factory is not sufficient to deny Modvat credit, which is otherwise admissible. The Commissioner rsquo s order denying the credit on technical grounds has to be set aside. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed.

522

2004 (2) TMI 589 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

SOUTH ASIA TYRES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... period. 2. emsp Heard Shri S.S. Bhagat, learned SDR, for the Department, who contends that the appellants had not claimed their case to be covered under Rule 57J at any stage during the earlier proceedings. Shri Shroff in reply states that coverage under Rule 57J was claimed before the Assistant Commissioner who heard the appellants but the order in original has been passed by another Assistant Commissioner who never heard the appellants. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of case records including the cited case laws, I am of the view that in the instant case, the appellants are eligible to avail input duty credit on the impugned goods. Not only the case laws cited are in favour of the appellants, but also the time period involved is little over 6 months but within the period of 9 months provided for in the rules at a later point of time and hence, can not be considered to be unreasonable. As such, the appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants.

523

2004 (2) TMI 265 - CESTAT, BANGALORE

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-III Versus ALLWYN AUTO LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... o the Modvat credit of the duty paid on that portion of the aluminium sheets which form part of the bus bodies cleared at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 162/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 in terms of Rule 57C ibid according to which no credit of the specified duty on the inputs used in the manufacture of a final product shall be allowed if the final product is exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon or is chargeable to nil rate of duty. However, the respondents will be entitled to the Modvat credit of the duty paid on that portion of the aluminium sheets which form part of the final product Aluminium waste and scrap cleared on payment of duty. 4. We are in perfect agreement with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) as above. The Revenue has no case that aluminium waste and scrap generated in the course of manufacture of bus bodies is not an excisable product. We therefore find no merit in this appeal by the Revenue. The appeal stands dismissed.

524

2004 (2) TMI 610 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

BENGAL SAWS & STEEL PRODUCTS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATTA

Demand - Limitation - Invocation of extended period - Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... ied to the appellants rsquo case by the Commissioner. However, the quantum of penalty imposed by the Commissioner cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of our decision on the merits of the various credits taken by the party. We have held that the credits of Rs. 1,18,155.80 and Rs. 80,131,27 are admissible to the party. It is in respect of the credits of Rs. 24,39,841/- and Rs. 47,704.14 that they have not been able to establish that, when they took the credits, there was anything in the law for the time being in force which entitled them to do so. They have also not shown that the departmental conduct during the relevant period was in favour of their availment of the credits. In the totality of this position and other facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the quantum of penalty should stand reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs. 10. emsp The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

525

2004 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT, chennai

STP LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... vail Modvat benefit. It also states that through oversight, entries for the same in the RG 23D register had not been made. They had further stated that they had taken enough steps to rectify the mistake and have requested the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, A-III Range, A-Division, Chennai to condone the lapse in the said letter. This letter was addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, A-III Range, A-Division, Chennai. In view of this letter, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to go back to the original authority for lsquo de novo rsquo consideration to re-examine the issue in the light of the rectified documents/registers and pass an appropriate order after granting a reasonable opportunity to the appellants of being heard. The matter shall be decided within a period of 6 months from the date of this order. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original authorities. The Stay Application is also disposed of. Ordered accordingly.

526

2004 (2) TMI 543 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

RAI AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA

Cenvat/Modvat - Delay in availing credit

.......... o Invoices Nos. 1056 and 1057 both dated 31-1-99. Obviously, they had taken the credit after the expiry of six months from the issuance of the invoices in con- travention of the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 57G which debars the taking of Modvat credit alter six months from the date of issuance of the invoices. 4. emsp The appellants no doubt submitted one letter a copy of which is at page 17 of the appeal folder to the Assistant Commissioner wherein they alleged that they had taken the Modvat credit after six months as due to shortage of funds, they could not get the release of the goods from the transport company. But that cannot be considered to be a sufficient ground for allowing them the Modvat credit in violation of the above said provisions of law. The Modvat credit had been rightly disallowed to the appellants. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

527

2004 (1) TMI 275 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

ASPAIF TEXTILE LAMINATIONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD-I

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... s a document issued by the dealer and its eligibility has to be determined in terms of the provisions contained in Notification 15/94 C.E. (N.T.), dated 30-3-1994. 7. On comparing the contents of the composite document, it is obvious that all the particulars required under the Notification 15/94-C.E. (N.T.) are present therein and therefore, the credit was correctly taken by the appellants on the basis of the said document. In fact, the departmental authorities had accepted this position inasmuch as, both the documents were defaced together. In case one of the documents was not valid for taking credit the same need not have been considered as a duty paying document and subjected to defacement. Accordingly I find that the lower authorities were in error in denying the credit. 8. Consequently orders of the lower authorities are required to be set aside and are accordingly set aside and the appeal of the appellants is allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

528

2004 (1) TMI 594 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... storage permission retrospectively, is concerned, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the objection is redundant when within the currency of limitation period the said permission for outside storage was available with the appellants. 6. emsp The credit was denied on the ground, that the same was taken beyond the period of 6 months stipulated in the proviso to Rule 57G(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as introduced by Notification No. 28/95-C.E. (N.T.), dated 29-6-95. The findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) are correct. There is no scope to mix up the issue of permission for outside storage and the limitation of 6 months stipulated for taking credit. Board rsquo s Circular dated 9-5-96 nowhere conveys that on grant of such permission the time limit for taking credit will not apply. 7. emsp Therefore, in the absence of any other grounds pleaded to justify taking of credit beyond the period of 6 months, the appellant rsquo s appeal is hereby rejected.

529

2004 (1) TMI 593 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE Versus TAMIL NADU TOBACCO CO. LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat

.......... C.C.E., reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 840. In the present case also as noted above, the only ground on which the substantive benefit is sought to be denied is that the invoice has not been re-endorsed when the goods were re-loaded. We further find from the records that the supplier viz. M/s. Deccan Tobacco Processors Ltd. have honestly endorsed the invoice with the remarks ldquo despatched by local lorry up to Transporter rsquo s godown for onward despatch to destination rdquo . This factual position has been noted by the original authority in the orders-in-original. To deny the substantive benefit of Modvat credit in such circumstances is too harsh to say the least. We find from the order portion of the lower appellate authority rsquo s order extracted above that he has passed a very reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the Revenue appeals as being devoid of merits. Ordered accordingly.

530

2004 (1) TMI 256 - CESTAT, KOLKATA

TEXMACO LIMITED Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-III

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... any case and in any event of the matter, we also find force in the appellants submission that the said Rule would not be attracted in the present set of facts and circumstances, where the entire goods covered by a bill of entry, were sold to the appellants and the bill of entry was endorsed within a period of six months and the first lot was also received within a period of six months. The entry based upon the said bill of entry was duly made in the RG-23A Part-I and Part-II within a period of six months from the bill of entry. It is only subsequently when different lots were received on different dates, the appellants actually took the Credit because of the simple reason that the Credit cannot be taken without the receipt of the goods and the goods could not have been transported in one lot to the appellants factory on account of its bulky nature. 8. In that view of the matter, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.

531

2004 (1) TMI 584 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

BIRLA CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods

.......... e of the appellants and covered by the ratio laid down in Kamakhya Steels (P) Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been observed that after the amendment of Rules 57G and T, an assessee will be entitled to the Modvat credit if other conditions are satisfied, even if defective or no declaration had been filed. But this contention was never raised before the authorities below. Since the case is being sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for having not passed proper speaking order regarding the condonation of delay, this contention of the appellants shall be also considered by him in the alternative specially when he has already held the goods eligible for Modvat credit 10. emsp In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. However, the matter is sent back to the Assistant Commissioner for deciding the case afresh, in accordance with law. 11. emsp Both the appeals of the appellants stand disposed of in the above terms.

532

2004 (1) TMI 269 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JALANDHAR Versus NV. ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.

Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents

.......... o. 62/99, dated 16-10-1999). 6. In view of the above Trade Notice, we find no merits in the contention of the Revenue that the goods in question were not brought to the registered premises of the dealer. In respect of the contention of the Revenue that the dealer has not received coils whereas he issued invoices in respect of the sheets, we find that the Revenue is not asking for any duty from the person who is cutting coils into sheets after decoiling. Further we find that above mentioned Trade Notice also covers this situation. As per the trade notice that cutting should be done in such a way that it does not result in change in tariff classification. In the present case, the revenue is not pleading that by cutting of coils amounts to manufacture or by cutting of coils the classification is changed. Therefore, the benefit of Modvat credit in respect of the invoices issued, by the dealer in respect of the sheets cannot be denied. 7. The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

533

2004 (1) TMI 450 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI

AGGARWAL ENTERPRISES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-IV

Demand - Clandestine removal - Penalty

.......... uch is not the position in this case. 5. emsp Similarly the argument of the learned Counsel that penalty under Section 11AC could not be imposed cannot be accepted. The bare perusal of the show cause notice shows that penalty of the amount equal to that of duty amount was proposed to be imposed on the appellants. The only mistake appearing in the show cause notice is that instead of mentioning Section 11AC, Section 11A had been typed. Rule 57-I had been correctly mentioned. Mere the omission to mention the correct Section for imposing penalty did not render the show cause notice invalid. The appellants cannot be said to had been taken by surprise regarding imposition of penalty on them. Rather they knew that penalty equal to the amount of duty had been sought to be recovered from them through the show cause notice. 6. emsp In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the same is upheld. The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

534

2004 (1) TMI 536 - CESTAT, CHENNAI

MRF LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

Cenvat/Modvat credit - Adjustment of - Exemption - Availment of

.......... then Notification No. 21/99 becomes irrelevant and otiose. This Tribunal in the case of Ashok Leyland v. CCE, Chennai vide final order Nos. 546 and 547/2002, dated 3-5-2002 as cited by the learned SDR has decided similar case in favour of the Revenue. In the present case, if the credit of duty was originally taken by the assessees, after 28-2-1999, then they had a case. As against that, admittedly, 95 credit was taken before the crucial date. The case laws cited by the appellants also would not come to their rescue as the facts and circumstances dealt with in those cases are not similar to the facts in the present case as could be seen from the case laws as cited above. 6. emsp In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in the impugned order of demand of expunction of the excess credit of Rs. 34,211/- being the 5 differential credit. The order impugned is therefore, upheld and the appeal is rejected. Ordered accordingly.

535

2004 (1) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

DORF KETAL CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-VII

Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Demand and penalty

.......... tates that sub-rule (7) of Rule 57F is very clear that re-credit has to be taken in the account maintained under sub-rule (7) of the Rule 57G which means RG 23A Part II account. He also states that Column 20 in the form Revised Annexure IV refers to particulars of payment of duty on scrap/waste under column No. 19. 3. emsp After hearing both sides and perusal of case records, I am satisfied that the re-credit has been taken in the PLA out of genuine confusion on the part of the appellants. I also observe that there is no dispute about the amount of re-credit taken and the Revenue interest is not affected by the fact that the re-credit has been taken in the PLA of the amount which was earlier paid through the PLA. As such, there is no case for raising the demand and imposition of penalty on the appellants. The matter could have been rectified by making necessary correction in the PLA and RG 23 Part II accounts. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal.

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

what is new what is new


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