|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2478 Records
-
2003 (12) TMI 682 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... or loan subject to condition and restriction as may be specified. It concluded that effect of this amendment was not to restrict taking of credit only to case where the capital goods were acquired from a finance company by any of the mode specified in the rule, and that the provision of Sub-rule (3) "will be applicable only in cases (sic) where a manufacturer acquires a capital goods in any manner as specified therein." On this conclusion it held that the appellant before it was entitled to take credit on the capital goods sent to it to Madhouse Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. on bailment agreement. It must be recorded that the Tribunal's decision was not in existence when the Commissioner passed his order. 5. The sole reason for denial of credit, the absence of ownership of the capital goods by the manufacturer cannot be sustained. Credit was therefore rightly taken. 6. Appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside. Consequential relief in accordance with law.
-
2003 (12) TMI 681 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The appeals are, accordingly dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 677 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ates that this Special Leave Petition has become infructuous. The Special Leave Peition is dismissed as such. Question of law is left open.
-
2003 (12) TMI 668 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... We see no reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 667 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... he meantime ad interim stay of the impugned order. List the matters in January, 2004 for the purpose of confirmation/continuation of the order of stay.
-
2003 (12) TMI 662 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n of the Tribunal. The civil appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (12) TMI 654 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... for retrieving the metal for further production. It is, therefore, being contended that recycling of the scrap is essentially captive consumption. 7. We find merit in the appellant’s case. Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 is for goods manufactured and sold by a small-scale unit. Goods manufactured by the appellant-manufacturer are various parts liable to central excise duty under Chapters 74, 83, 84, 87 etc. The appellant is not engaged in the manufacture of waste and scrap. They merely arise in the manufacture of the parts. Waste and scrap cannot be called specified goods manufactured by the appellant. That being the case, the value of waste and scrap cannot find a place while computing aggregate value of the specified goods produced and cleared by the appellants. That also goes against the object and purpose of the notification. 8. In the view we have taken above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellants.
-
2003 (12) TMI 645 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... reason to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 640 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... , in the absence of a clear finding, it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion that the beams and joists, casings, floor beams and steel structures are essential for supporting structure and actually used in the plant for that purpose or they were used as construction materials. Since a clear finding is not given in both the Orders-in-Appeal, it is necessary to get the correct picture for arriving at a correct conclusion. Therefore, both the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority to take a fresh decision on the declaration rejected earlier after factual verification whether the steel structure and casings, floor beams and bracing, beam and joists are actually the supporting materials necessary and essential for the plant or otherwise as per the law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the party. Thus, these two appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pronounced in the Court on 5.12.2003.
-
2003 (12) TMI 632 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation on MRP basis ... ... ... ... ..... f ₹ 9/-. In the appeal memorandum, the appellant has stated that it has sold its product within Varanasi for more than 2,500 shops, dhabas/restaurants and cinema halls. Therefore, reference to the price at the rate of ₹ 10/- per bottle in advertisement board placed in front of three dhabas cannot be generalised. 3. This is matter which has to be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeals. Since an arguable case is made out and also in the light of the submission of the appellants that it has incurred a loss of ₹ 2,000 crores and therefore, it has financial hardship, we exempt the condition from pre-deposit and grant stay of recovery. Appeals are posted for hearing on 11th February, 2004.
-
2003 (12) TMI 631 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... manufacturer does not avail of credit of duty paid on any product manufactured in the same factory. This condition does not convey the meaning that the manufacturer should not avail of credit of duty paid on inputs which are used in respect of other products manufactured in the same factory. The condition clearly provides that the manufacturer should not avail of credit of the duty paid on any products manufactured in the same factory.” 5. It has not been disputed by the respondents that demand of duty was not challenged by them before the original Adjudicating Authority and they had also discharged their duty liability even before the issuance of show cause notice. In view of the decision in the case of N.M. Nagpal, the respondents would not have been liable to pay the duty. In view of this, we find substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the respondents that no penalty is imposable on them. We, therefore, reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2003 (12) TMI 574 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... . 3. emsp It is well settled position now that the burden lies on the department to establish that there is nexus between advances and the fixation of selling price. Since this burden has not been discharged, interest on advances cannot be added in determining the assessable value. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and in the result the appeal is hereby dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 572 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... acturer or subsequently by a dealer is an evidence of secondary nature which generates from the primary evidence of payment through TR 6 challan. When the rules accept the evidence of secondary documents, it is impossible to visualise that the primary evidence of duty payment i.e. TR 6, on the basis of which the secondary documents are created has to be discarded. It has to be understood that, the plethora of secondary documents have been recognised, only for the reason that, for the user of inputs, it may not be possible to obtain or access the primary duty paying documents. 4. emsp In the circumstances, I find no merit in Revenue rsquo s appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2003 (12) TMI 570 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r MT was being charged as a transportation charge from their customers, the same would not be included in the assessable value of the assessee in terms of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Baroda Electric Meters Ltd. As such we set aside the demand confirmed against the appellant. As regards the second part of the demand, we find that the same has been raised for by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 2-8-2001 for a period from September, 1998 to June, 2000. As such the same is clearly barred by limitation. It is not the Revenue rsquo s case that the appellants were not placing invoices showing clearance of the product at the lower value, in which case the longer period of limitation cannot be invoked against them. Accordingly, we set aside the said demand on the point of limitation. 6. emsp Inasmuch as the demand has been set aside, the penalty is also set aside. Appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any. Stay petition also stands disposed of.
-
2003 (12) TMI 569 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Captive consumption - Comparable goods ... ... ... ... ..... in 1991 the Commissioner (Appeals) held that for clearances from Waluj, of semi finished parts, the margin of profit was 10 of the cost furnished by the appellant. That order was not challenged by the department. Secondly, whatever duty was paid at the factory at Waluj would be available as Modvat credit at the factory of the same appellant at Akurdi. There was therefore no motive intention for it to short pay duty or evade payment of duty. It has been held that in such a situation the extended period of limitation will not apply see Kitply Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. CCE - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 110 (T) 2003 (55) RLT 726 . The demand therefore would be confined to the normal period of limitation. This being the case, the provisions of section 11AB cannot be invoked. The matter is now remanded to Assistant Commissioner to determine the duty payable and also to determine the penalty which is to be imposed. 5. emsp The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
2003 (12) TMI 567 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents - Manufacturer ... ... ... ... ..... efore 4-7-1994, when such invoices could be issued only by those dealers who had received the goods directly from the manufacturer, and since no evidence were produced to show that the invoices were issued directly from the manufacturer this credit was denied. This credit is found to be not deniable since CBE circular 76/76/94, dt. 6-11-1994 read with Rule 57GG and these invoices being inconfirmity with the requirements of Notification No. 15/94, dt. 3-3-1994. As regards the denial of credit amounting to Rs. 12,200/- on ground that that invoice was not in the name of the appellant and credit on endorsed invoice was not permissible. The said credit has been denied following the decision of this Tribunal and no contrary decision has been brought out in the grounds made in the appeal or urged before me. Therefore, the denial of this credit amount as determined by the Commissioner has to be upheld. 3. emsp This appeal is disposed off in view of the findings arrived herein- above.
-
2003 (12) TMI 566 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty - Unaccounted finished goods ... ... ... ... ..... orne in mind that, non-recording of production in the RG 1 creates a scope for clandestine removal and consequent duty evasion. Therefore, the rules require that the manufacturers record the production of fully finished goods in the required register, as soon as the goods are ready for making such an entry. In any individual case of marginal failure the authority may take a lenient view, but that does not automatically mean that violation of this nature without any explanation can be condoned and in all cases it must be held that the goods found in the factory, in excess of recorded of production can not be subjected to confiscation for the reason that there was no attempt to clandestine removal. 10. emsp On these considerations, the findings contained in the order-in-appeal are not sustainable. 11. emsp Accordingly, I allow the appeal filed by the Revenue and consequently impugned order so far as the appeal relating to the respondents herein- above is concerned is set aside.
-
2003 (12) TMI 565 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand and penalty - Misuse of goods ... ... ... ... ..... taken that the Commissioner (Appeals) has incorrectly accepted the contention that merely because an intermediate product was a technologically necessity should not mean that the material was not used in the fine product and that the misuse was at the L6 holders end cannot be a ground for allowing the Revenue rsquo s appeal, since both these issues are factually correct. (b) Since misuse, if any, has taken place at L6 holders end and the ground taken by Revenue is that L6 holders permission was not correct, the liability to duty on the L6 holder in issuing the product, on a valid CT-3 would not arise. Demands if any are required to be made on L6 holder. There cannot be a cause to visit the L4 holder with a penalty under Rule 73Q. (c) The demands and penalties are being found to be correctly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), as no valid grounds have been made out in the Revenue appeal herein to upset the same. Revenue appeal required to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (12) TMI 564 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ued at the instance of the Pratishtan, when confronted with the notice and adjudication proceedings demanding duty. In point of fact, a letter dated 20-1-1994 of the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramudyog Board clearly indicates that no recognition had been given to the appellant rsquo s unit at Iyava. The contention of the representative of the appellant that this letter was not made available to it cannot be accepted. This letter forms part of the show cause notice and the annexure detailing documents relied upon and the notice itself indicates that these documents were available for inspection. The order also records the admission made by the President of the appellant that on various occasions in February, March and July, 1994 it has not been recognised by State or Central Organisation. We do not think that the correspondence subsequently obtained prevails over these statements and therefore conclude that the Commissioner has rightly denied the exemption. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
2003 (12) TMI 563 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Cenvat/Modvat - Notification No. 29/96-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... e, it is apparent that the respondents could have utilised the accumulated Modvat credit for payment of duty on goods cleared for home consumption or for export. Their only grievance is that, they were not allowed to do so through some verbal instructions. If they had done so, they would also run the risk of not being eligible to obtain the refund, on account of breach of conditions laid down in Notification 29/96-C.E., dated 3-9-1996. In my view, the adjudicating authority has correctly disallowed the refund claim on the aforesaid ground and therefore the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained for the reason that Notification 29/96-C.E., does not contain any exception for granting refund, in the event the manufacturer does not utilise the credit for payment of duty for home consumption/export, for whatever reason. 4. emsp Consequentially, I allow the department rsquo s appeal and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside.
........
|
