Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 74753 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (9) TMI 669
CENVAT credit - items which were cleared by the appellant as scrap or as un-used items or partially used items - case of appellant is that these goods are generated out of the items procured prior to March 1994 and therefore there is no question of reversal of Cenvat credit - applicability of Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Rule 3(5A) applies on capital goods on which credit has been taken and which are cleared as waste and scrap. The product has to be first been received as capital goods and on which the credit has been availed. Before invoking Rule 3(5A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is necessary for the Revenue to establish that items of capital goods are cleared as waste and scrap and on which the appellant has availed Cenvat credit. The defense of the appellant throughout is that they have not availed Cen....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 668
CENVAT Credit - Partial writing off of inputs - reversal u/r 3(5B) of CCR - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the appellant has partially written off the value of certain inputs and has not fully written off. Further, as per the provisions of Rule 3(5B), the appellant is required to reverse the CENVAT credit if he has written off fully the value of inputs whereas in this case, the appellant has not fully written off - Further, in the case of partial writting off, the provision has been incorporated with effect from 1.4.2011 whereas in the present case, the period involved is prior to this date, therefore, this amendment is not applicable in the appellant’s case - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2019 (9) TMI 646
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - refund claim - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22. 8. 2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as claimed refund i. e. ₹ 23, 76, 046/- is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 645
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - clandestine removal - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 50, 53, 000/- approximately is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 644
Clandestine removal - finished goods cleared without recording such clearance in their Daily Stock Register - demand based on allegation of shortage of goods - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The reasons assigned for proposing the duty demand were the shortage of goods found during physical verification on 10.01.2011 and that the details of such goods were not reflected in the ER-1 returns filed during the impugned period from 28.02.2010 to 10.01.2011. It is found that the said physical verification was carried out as per the request of the Appellant to verify the destroyed goods and grant permission to restart production. In the Adjudication order, no finding has been given by the Asstt. Commissioner about the various correspondences exchanged between the Appellant and the Department though the table containing sequence of ev....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 643
100% EOU - Clandestine removal - diversion of goods to DTA instead of EOU - penalty u/r 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- As per facts of the case, it is not case of clandestine removal as the appellant have cleared goods initially which was meant for another EOU and clearances was made ARE-3 against CT-3 certificate. It is only due to the cancellation of the order, the appellant was compelled to divert the goods to DTA for which necessary permission was obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant. Penalty cannot be upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
- 2019 (9) TMI 642
Rejection of refund claim - unjust enrichment - duty discharged @ 16% instead of 9.6% due to oversight for the period from July 2002 to December 2002 - N/N. 9/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 - rebuttal of presumption - section 12B of CEA - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the appellant had shown the duty amount in the invoice issued to the customers. Thereafter, on realizing the mistake of excess payment of duty, they have issued credit notes to the customers so as to adjust the excess payment made by them. This adjustment is rebutted in the balance sheet in the form of receivables. Thus, it is very much clear from the accounts as well as the documents that the appellant has rebutted the presumption envisaged under section 12B of Central Excise Act. The rejection of the refund claim on the ground that it is hit by unjust enrichment therefore cannot sustain - Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2019 (9) TMI 579
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 52,84,424/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 578
Refund claim - relevant date - CENVAT Credit reversed in excess of what was required to be reversed - common inputs used for both dutiable and exempted goods - Rule 6(3A) of CCR, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Rule 6(3A), Clause (f) which is applicable in the present case, there is no time limit provided for claiming the credit. Further, the relevant date as provided in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is also to be counted from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment which is specially provided in Clause (eb) of Section 11B. Further, in the present case, the final adjustment happens on 30.11.2017 and that is the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the period of limitation as provided in Section 11B and if that date i.e., 30.11.2017 is taken, then the refund claim filed on 4.7.2018 is within the period of limitation. Bot....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 577
Refund of the excess duty paid - provisional assessment - doctrine of unjust enrichment - Section 11B read with Section 12B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s own case M/S TVS MOTOR COMPANY LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE& SERVICE TAX MYSORE [2017 (6) TMI 163 - CESTAT BANGALORE], this Tribunal has held that any appeal against the sanctioning of refund order, the Revenue cannot recover erroneously sanctioned refund by parallel proceedings by issue of SCN. The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.,C.E. & S. T- MYSORE VERSUS JK TYRE & INDUSTRIES LTD., VIKRANT TYRES LTD. [2018 (6) TMI 174 - CESTAT BANGALORE] has held that the test of unjust enrichment does not apply to the cases of provisional assessment. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Appellant.
- 2019 (9) TMI 576
Clandestine removal - clearance of goods to 100% EOU - allegation of clearance of Polyester Yarn by the Appellants in the market has been made on the ground that the partners of M/s Sunshine Overseas in their statements stated that they did not receive any Polyester Fabrics - Demand mainly based on statements of various persons - cross-examination of statements not provided - HELD THAT:- During investigation the Appellant factory was also searched and no incriminating documents or evidences were found, which shows that the Appellant did not clear Polyester fabric to M/s Sunshine Overseas and instead cleared Polyster yarn in local market. Stock of raw material and finished goods etc. were found to be in order. Even, the statutory records were found to have been correctly maintained by the appellant firm and the same has nowhere disputed. I....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 529
Refund of Excise Duty - Time Limitation - relevant date - pre-deposit - Whether payment towards Excise duty can be construed to be payment made towards pre-deposit? - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the case of the petitioner that payment towards Excise Duty is in the form of pre-deposit is misconceived. Considering the annexures annexed with the petition i.e. Challans for deposit of Central Excise Duty in Form No.TR-6, that too, without protest is the payment towards the Excise Duty and can never be considered as pre-deposit. If any payment is made as a pre-condition for exercising the statutory right it can be termed as pre-deposit. However,it cannot be equated with voluntary deposit of Excise Duty paid even during the course of investigation and prior to show cause notice or adjudication to assert that it is pre-deposit. The payment of du....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 528
Condonation of delay of 621 days in taking out the motion - HELD THAT:- The Applicant was under the impression that the appeal would be numbered and it would come up for consideration in normal course. When the reorganization of the Appellant took place, after the introduction of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 the papers regarding this appeal were transferred to Daman Commissionerate. It is at that point of time, on enquiry, the Applicant realized that the appeal was not numbered and it stood dismissed consequent to the order dated 17 March 2016 passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master - On account of the above misunderstanding of the order dated 3 October 2016 passed by this Court, the Applicant could not take steps early to set aside the order dated 17 March 2016. We are satisfied with the reasons for the delay in filing this application - Notice of motion allowed.
- 2019 (9) TMI 477
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Condonation of delay of 1475 days in filing appeal - Section 5 of the Limitation Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant admits that in view of instructions dated 22.8.2019 issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Judicial Cell) the instant appeal would not be maintainable before this Court, as demand amount i.e. ₹ 62, 30, 807/- is to be recovered, which is below the monetary limit of ₹ 1 Crore. In view of the said instructions dated 22.8.2019 learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of the instant appeal, however the question of law raised would remain open. Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
- 2019 (9) TMI 474
Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy - Process amounting to manufacture - excisability - printing of Signages (Sign Boards), Printed Digital Flex, Pylon Signs, Glow Signs etc., and supplying the same to various customers, like M/s.Reliance Retail, M/s.Arvind Styles, M/s.3M India etc. - demand of excise duty - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to entertain this Writ Appeal, as we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in relegating the appellant to the alternative remedy of the statutory appeal, provided under the law. No exceptional circumstances are found to allow such issues to be raised in Writ jurisdiction. Of course, the appellant is free to raise all the questions, including the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction, before the Appellate Authority, who is expected to decide all ....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 472
Evasion of Central Excise Duty - guilty of the offence set out under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act - special and adequate reasons within the meaning of proviso to Section 9 of the Act or not - HELD THAT:- Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, sets out the offences and penalties. The respondent, in this case, had admitted and they were also found guilty of the offence set out under Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act. Proviso to Section 9(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, prescribes a minimum term of six months imprisonment. Of-course, if there are special and adequate reasons, it is open to the trial Court to sentence the accused for a term of less than six months. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Department would contend that the reasons assigned by the Court below cannot be called as special and....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 470
CENVAT Credit - input services - Outward Transportation of Goods (GTA services) - period May 2016 to November 2016 and December 2016 to June 2017 - HELD THAT:- The Ld.Consultant has argued that the sale is on F.O.R. Destination basis, however from the records placed before me, I am not able to find sufficient evidence to establish this contention - It is necessary to establish place of removal in the present case. The adjudicating authority is directed to verify and determine the place of removal after appreciating the facts as well as the documents produced by the appellant - matter is therefore remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration of the issue. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2019 (9) TMI 466
CENVAT Credit - input services - freight charges for outward transportation of goods - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the sale is on F.O.R. basis. The documents show that the sale is on F.O.B. destination/free house delivery. The appellant was under an obligation to deliver the goods at the buyer’s premises. They have also included the freight charges in the assessable value while discharging the excise duty. This issue, as to how to determine the place of removal, when the sale is on F.O.R. basis, as has been dealt in the case of COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD VERSUS M/S ROOFIT INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (4) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT]. The department has also clarified vide its Circular dated 08.06.2018 that when the sale is on F.O.R. basis, the freight charges ought to be included in the assessable value and the place of re....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 461
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward freight up to the place of buyer - period October, 2010 to March, 2014 - amendment in the definition of input service - HELD THAT:- Apparently and admittedly, the cenvat credit has been availed on the service tax paid for the services as that of transportation which are used beyond the place of removal. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ultra Tech Cement [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] has clarified that the word ‘up to’ signifies the terminating point, putting an end to the transport journey - Prior the amendment in the definition of input service in the year 2008, the word ‘from’ instead of the word ‘up to’ was used, which used to include the services even beyond the place of removal. That situation stands extinct since the amendment which came into effect from 01....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 423
Principles of Natural Justice - the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses - HELD THAT:- No reply statement has been filed opposing such a statement made in the counter affidavit. As such it is seen that the petitioners were granted opportunity at least on four occasions which have not been availed by the petitioners. It is also seen that the petitioners has not produced any list of witnesses whom they intend to cross examine. In these circumstances, it can be said that sufficient opportunities were extended to the petitioner, which was not availed by them, within a reasonable time. In cases where there is violation of principles of natural justice, this Court would be justified in interfering with the final orders inspite of an appeal remedy available to the petitioner - Since the respondents had granted....... + More