|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 326 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 962 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ound of delay as also on merits. SLP (C) CC…9776/2008 The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2008 (7) TMI 960 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal should have considered that because of the processing of the goods by the respondent the value of the goods is increased and therefore, duty has to be revised. Admittedly this point was not urged before the Tribunal. It is submitted because this point was not considered by the Commissioner, the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner, but in our opinion, the permission cannot be granted to the appellant to raise the said point for the first time before this Court. 2. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, there is no question of law arises. The appeal is rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 959 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy before the Tribunal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 950 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... review petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 947 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se notice as to why such credit should not be denied. After considering the reply and the statements of the concerned persons the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. 3. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the authorities have been relying on order of the Tribunal in case of M/s. National Engineering Industries Limited v. CCE, Jaipur-I against which order an appeal has been preferred before Rajasthan High Court and hence, the present appeal deserves admission. 5. On pendency of such an appeal before another High Court normally the Court would have made an order of admission. However, in the present case, it is an accepted position that the transaction is revenue neutral in nature and hence, the issue is academic. 6. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as the issue is academic in nature.
-
2008 (7) TMI 945 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Words and Phrases - the view taken by the tribunal is in consonance with the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 834 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Interest and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... payable when demand for differential duty arises as a result of revision of value and therefore the demand for interest has been correctly upheld. 3. emsp I have considered the arguments from both sides. I find that interest is payable and no relief can be given since it is a statutory liability. As regards penalty in view of the submission that they had paid differential duty on their own during the previous years on finalization of cost audit report and during the present period also the cost audit report had not yet been finalized and therefore the same practice of paying differential duty after finalization of cost audit report would have been followed, I feel that imposition of penalty is not justified. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellants is set aside. The interest liability will be discharged after the appellant receive the intimation from the Department rsquo in due course. The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 833 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs used for repair and maintenance of machinery - extended period of limitation - Held that: - For proper running of the plant and machinery, maintenance is important. From time to time there would be break down and it is very necessary that the repairs are carried out and while carrying out repairs definitely certain inputs are needed and from the definition of input it is very clear that even the items which are used in the maintenance and repair also would be covered by the term ‘inputs’ as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rule 2(k) - When there is a question of interpretation, the longer period cannot be invoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (7) TMI 832 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Rectification of mistake - Mistake apparent ... ... ... ... ..... constitute error on the face of the record. We observe no more for the purpose of this case. 13. emsp The remedy of appeal, revision or review etc. is creature of statute and rectification application under Section 35-C(2) of the Central Excise Act cannot be placed on a higher pedestal. If the Legislature had intended to provide for review of the orders, such power could be expressly conferred. The Tribunal rsquo s power of rectifying any mistake cannot be used as a tool by a disgruntled unsuccessful party to prolong the proceeding. The power has to be exercised with due care and circumscription. rsquo 6. emsp For the reasons aforesaid and following the ratio laid down by Apex Court in some of the judgments cited above, the appellant fails to succeed in entirety except to the extent of rectification of typographical error in Para 3.3 of Tribunal rsquo s order dated 19-7-2007 as indicated in Para 4.4 aforesaid. We order accordingly. (Pronounced in the open court on 18-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 831 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - Clandestine removal - Held that: - In the present case, no Cenvat credit was availed on the raw materials - further, the raw material was received by the assessee. Therefore, this cannot come under the category of excisable goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 827 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), PUNE-II
Rubber patch - Criss-cross rubber patch - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... of the Hon rsquo ble CEGAT in the case of MRF v. Collr. C. Ex. 1987 (31) E.L.T. 71 (T) classifying the item in question under Tariff Item No. 68, which was subsequently classified under tariff sub heading No. 4016.99, still holds good. In addition to the above, the products in question, which are similar to the appellants rsquo products, are classified in Trichy Commissionerate, under tariff sub heading No. 4016.99 and thus, as contended by the appellants, there cannot be a different treatment to the appellants. In this regard, they also derive support from the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Damodar J. Malpani v. Collector of Central Excise 2002 (146) E.L.T. 483 (S.C.) . 7. emsp In view of the above discussions and facts, I order that the product namely, lsquo criss-cross rubber patch rsquo , which is not in the form of plates, sheets or strips, would be classifiable under sub-heading No. 4016.99 only and not under tariff sub-heading No. 4008.21.
-
2008 (7) TMI 826 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
BANCO PRODUCT INDIA LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA ... ... ... ... ..... relates to the law as they existed earlier and learned advocate could not show that the rules are pari materia, even though such claim was made. I am inclined to accept the view that the letter from Supdtt. does not amount to a speaking order and therefore by not filing appeal against the letter, appellants have lost the right to claim admissibility of the Cenvat credit. The fact remains that under the present Cenvat Credit Rules, there is no provision to take credit on the basis of photo -copy and there are also no provisions which specifically provide for condonation of procedural lapses. Therefore, no prima facie case has been made out on merit. Therefore, the appellants are required to deposit an amount of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) within eight weeks from today and report compliance on 26-9-08. Subject to payment of pre-deposit as mentioned above, recovery of balance amount is stayed during the pendency of appeal. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 824 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - Job work ... ... ... ... ..... as under - ldquo 7. emsp In further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal, relying upon an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Paras Prints Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Surat reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 662 (Tribunal), held that in the absence of any allegation in the notice or finding of the Commissioner that the appellant knew or deliberately failed to declare the correct cost of the grey fabrics and also there being no legal requirement for the processors to verify the correctness of the declaration furnished by the owners, extended period of limitation is not applicable. 8. emsp The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact which does not call for any interference. rdquo 7. emsp Accordingly in view of the above reasoning and respectfully following the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 823 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Sliver - Excisability - Marketability ... ... ... ... ..... on polyester/viscose polyester slivers, which come into existence during the manufacturing in the factory premises of the appellant. We find that in an identical issue in the case of Apollo Textiles Mills and Bharat Textiles Mills, the Tribunal vide its final order Nos. A/846-849/WZB/06/C-I/EB dated 20-4-2006, relied upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grentex and Co. and Another v. Union of India - 1988 (36) E.L.T. 11 (Bom), allowed the appeals with consequential relief. 4. emsp Respectfully following the same, we also set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 822 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eiterates the finding of Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that in this case, the job worker is an un-registered person and, therefore, manufacturer was liable to pay the duty. 4. emsp After hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, we find that the goods were cleared under challan under Rule 57F of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, it appears that there was a confusion regarding the payment of duty on this issue. In any event, the ld. Advocate is not disputing demand of duty. We find that the appellant deposited duty before issue of show cause notice. There is no material placed by the Revenue regarding suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. 5. emsp In view of the above discussion, we find that the penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Act is not sustainable. Accordingly, the penalty is set aside. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 29-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 821 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Restoration of order - Ex parte order - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... aside. 5. emsp In view of the reasons explained in the application, we find merit in the contention of the applicant. Further, we find that on the issue of imposition of penalty, there is no finding in the Final Order dated 11-4-2008. The applicant s contention is only for setting aside of penalty. We find that there were divergent views on the issue and the matter was settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Vikram Detergents Ltd. (supra), therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. In view of this, Final Order dated 11-4-2008 is recalled to the extent of leviability of penalty only. 6. emsp As prior to the decision of Larger Bench in the case of Vikram Detergent (supra), there are divergent views, therefore, it is not a case for imposition of penalty. The penalty imposed on the applicant is set aside. Otherwise, on merits the impugned order in respect of demand is upheld. The application is disposed of as indicated above. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 820 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... nd whether the undertaking to bear all the future liabilities would include liabilities which had arisen as a consequence of clandestine removal prior to taking over of the management for which show cause notice was issued subsequently. However, I find that in view the undertaking given by the partners to fulfill all future liabilities, prima facie, the appellant has no case. Learned consultant admitted that he has not checked up the financial position of the appellant. In view of the fact that no prima facie case has been made out on merit, appellants are required to make payment of pre-deposit of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) which is less than 75 of the duty within eight weeks from today. Matter will come up for ascertaining compliance on 26-9-2008. Subject to payment of pre-deposit within the due date specified above, recovery of balance amount of duty, penalty and interest are stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 818 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ds and the submissions we find that the crane has been assembled in September, 1987 itself. The receipt of grab bucket in January, 1988 does not lead to the conclusion that the assembly of crane has been completed only thereafter. The grab bucket is in the nature of accessories. The submission by the respondent that the crane has been completed in September, 1987 itself even before receipt of grab bucket is reasonable and acceptable. Further, during the period September, 1987 to 1992, it could not be held that the officers of Department have not visited the factory and that such a massive structure in the form of crane coming up in the factory was not noticed by them. As the show cause notice has been issued on 28-10-1992. We hold that the entire demand is time barred and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is time barred is sustainable. 7. emsp In view of the above, the appeals by the Department are rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 817 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... ment, that they have been manufacturing the computers, have been given by any of the concerned persons. 4. emsp Ld. DR on behalf of the Department submits that only bills and invoices were recovered and as per the bills and invoices, they have sold the assembled computers under their own brand name. He also submits that there is no evidence of manufacturing activity at the time of visit by the officers and that no statement inculpatory in nature has been given by the concerned persons. 5. emsp The demand of duty is basically on the presumption that the assessee herein has assembled the computers and sold them. No reliable evidence has been shown to us to come to this conclusion. 6. emsp The appeal by the party is to be allowed. As we are allowing the appeal by the party, the appeal of the Department for imposition of mandatory penalty is without any merit and the same is rejected. The appeals are disposed of as above. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 29-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 816 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
SSI Exemption - Computation of clearances - inclusion of export value in the value of clearances - Held that: - if the export values are required to be included in the value of clearances for home consumption, then the duty paid on such exports, when they were still within the exemption limit of ₹ 50 lakhs, is required to be treated as deposit and the appellant’s duty liability is required to be re-quantified by treating the entire clearances in chronological order and such duty deposits are required to be adjusted against the appellant’s duty liability - matter remanded for re-quantification of duty.
........
|
