|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2654 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 1054
... ...
... ... ..... Central Excise, Indore. In that case, the Division Bench had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging notice issued by the Excise Officer. Aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench is quite distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the notices are not challenged by the petitioners, the petitioners in the present case have challenged initiation of proceeding against them on the ground the t the same is without jurisdiction. The Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 372 has laid down that if initiation of action against the assessee is without jurisdiction in absence of recording reasons, then writ petition filed by the such assessee is maintainable. In such circumstances, all the three writ petitions stand allowed as no reason to believe was recorded by the officer before conducting the raid. Impugned Panchanama (Annexure P/1) and consequential proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1043
... ...
... ... ..... in the absence of petitioners’ counsel on the relevant date of hearings namely 06-10-2009 and 08-10-2009 in view of the asserted illhealth of the counsel as supported by medical certificates, the petitioners did not therefore have an adequate opportunity of presenting their point of view for the relief of a concession on the pre-deposit for preferring the appeal. In the circumstances above, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Raj Kiran, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Excise and Customs, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission directing the petitioners to deposit 50% of the duty and 10% of the penalty as determined by the order of the 1st respondent dated 22-05-2008 within a period of three (3) weeks from today. On such deposit, the 2nd respondent-Tribunal shall entertain the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In default of such deposit the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1029
... ...
... ... ..... ndatory. 31. In absence of any agreement or statutory provision or a mercantile usage, interest payable can be only at the market rate. Such interest is payable upon establishment of totality of circumstances justifying exercise of such equitable jurisdiction. See Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Sushila Devi (1999) 2 SCR 1198. As was observed in para 30 referred to above, if the claim of interest is on equitable ground, a written demand therefor is imperative. 10. In the instant case admittedly no such written demand has been made. In terms of Section 11BB(1), the respondent- assessee is entitled to interest from 12th April, 2004 to 26th August, 2004. The quantum shall be worked out and the amount shall be paid within a period of four weeks. The order of the High Court is accordingly modified and the appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extend. No costs. 9. Bound by the aforesaid judgment, as we are, we find no merit in the present writ petition which is dismissed. No costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1020
... ...
... ... ..... all scale exemption No one to one relationship of inputs used and the final products manufactured and cleared from the factory credit of duty paid on inputs cannot be confined to a particular raw material to which the credit is related and out of which a final product is manufactured assessee not required to reverse the CENVAT credit. 4. Heard. 5. I have gone through the submissions made by both the parties and find that the case of the respondent is squarely covered by the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. CNC Commercial Ltd. - 2008 (224) ELT 239 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that in these facts and circumstances, while opting for SSI exemption the assessee is not required to reverse the CENVAT Credit. Following the same ratio, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 1008
... ...
... ... ..... affidavit submitted only now. Learned SDR submits that in any case the letters and affidavit would require verification and therefore, suggests that matter be remanded for this purpose. 4. In this case, in view of the fact that appellants have submitted letters with affidavits of the suppliers of the goods, who were found to be non existent, the fact as to whether the letters and affidavits were filed by the same persons, is required to be verified and thereafter the matter is required to be re-adjudicated. Further, it has also been submitted that show cause notices have been issued to the weavers also. Therefore, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 and allow the stay petition and take-up the appeal itself for decision and remand the matter to Original Adjudicating Authority, who shall proceed to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to the appellants to represent their case. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 999
... ...
... ... ..... s it provided that the specified goods must be the same or similar to the goods for which the brand name or trade name is registered. The Tribunal has in adopting the above reasoning effectively added to the Notification words to the effect “brand name or trade name in respect of the same goods”. This is clearly impermissible. It is to be seen that there may be an unregistered brand name or an unregistered trade name. These might not be in respect of any particular goods. Even if an unregistered brand name or trade name is used the exemption is lost. This makes it very clear that the exemption would be lost so long as the brand name or trade name is used irrespective of whether the use is on same goods as those for which the mark is registered.“ 5. We find that the impugned orders are consistent with the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly we sustain the impugned orders and dismiss these appeals. (Pronounced in the Court on 23-12-2009)
-
2009 (12) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... ods cleared to any place in India is excise duty, the question of dissecting the said duty into different components of basic customs duty, auxiliary duty, additional duty of Customs or any other customs duty does not arise. The proforma of AR-1A on which the reliance was placed by the learned D.R., cannot change the legal position that the duty levied on 100 E.O.U. is a duty of excise and not customs duty . 7. Learned DR has also stated that the reference which was made based on the decision of the Larger Bench to the Bombay High Court has been withdrawn vide order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the Bombay High Court in Central Excise Application No. 27 of 2001. Admittedly, the department has not challenged the decision of the Larger Bench in Vikram Ispat case and obviously the same is binding. As the impugned order has been passed entirely on the basis of the decision in Vikram Ispat case, we find no case for interference therein. Appeal therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... is case, the Department#s appeal is dismissed without going into the merits of the case and the issue would be dealt with in future in an appropriate case. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 970
Pre-deposit - Held that: - the Respondent shall be entitled to invoke and encash the aforesaid Bank Guarantee and on invoking the Bank Guarantee the ABN Amro Bank shall pay the aforesaid amount to the Respondent. On encashment of this Bank Guarantee, the condition of pre-deposit shall be treated as satisfied - petition allowed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... not possible, Cenvat credit is refunded in cash. This appears to be the Scheme of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. With a view to achieve this object, the Central Government has specifically enacted Rule 6(6)(v) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to the effect that the bar created by Rule 6(1) will not apply for goods exported. Considering the conscious and express provisions contained in Rule 6(6)(v) for exported goods, to deny the permission to export under bond and/or to levy 10 on the value of the exported goods under Rule 6(3)(b) on the footing that the printed books exempt and, therefore, attract Rule 6(1) would be incorrect and completely nullify and frustrate Rule 6(6)(v)." 9. Commissioner(Appeals) has also taken the same view. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. 10. Appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Cross objection in support of Order-in-Appeal is also disposed of. Pronounced in Court on 17.12.2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 960
... ...
... ... ..... 239) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.), the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration in accordance with law. Civil Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2009 (12) TMI 940
... ...
... ... ..... ng.) and Keihin Fie Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III 2007 (213) ELT 637 (Tri.-Mumbai). The lower appellate authority also relied on these decisions of the Tribunal. In either of these cases, the assessee had not availed 50 of the CENVAT credit on capital goods during the first financial year in which the goods were received in their factory. One of the parties availed 100 credit in the next financial year, while the other party chose to avail 50 credit in the next financial year. In both the cases, it was held that there was no bar against availment of CENVAT credit in the second financial year to the extent of 50 where the benefit was not availed in the first financial year. The present appeal of the department is silent on the two crucial decisions of the Tribunal, which were relied on by the lower appellate authority. In the memo of appeal, there is mention of a few other decisions of this Tribunal, but there is no elaboration. 3. The appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... e Central Excise Act, 1944, to the High Court. He seeks permission to withdraw these appeals. Permission granted. Liberty is given to the appellants to move the High Court in accordance with law. The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2009 (12) TMI 931
Entitlement to interest - whether the interest on delayed refund is to be paid to the party immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application of refund u/s 11B and 11BB of CEA, 1944? - Held that: - the assessee is entitled for refund claim within three months from the date of application of refund claim and if there is any subsequent litigation, that does not bar the assessee to claim the interest from date of expiry of three months of the filing of the refund claim - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (12) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... l on both sides. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 919
... ...
... ... ..... btained by the appellant-assessee. 3. Heard the learned SDR Shri T.H. Rao appearing for the Department. 4. In the absence of required COD clearance, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the appellants to apply for restoration in the event of obtaining necessary COD clearance later on. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 911
Clandestine removal - forged copies of Central Excise invoices along with challans-cum-proforma invoices evidencing clearances of goods by the appellants - Held that: - It is a case where Department has failed to made out a case against the appellants with corroborative evidences, which could have been done by them easily by verifying the fact of clandestine removal from the transporters as well as buyers of the appellants - no investigation was done about the productions made in the appellant’s factory for excess production and its removal without payment of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (12) TMI 846
... ...
... ... ..... averaged out and invoked to demand duty on the entire quantity of different non CPS by-products viz. crude glycerin, low volatile and pitch oil, although, each of the products have different character and use. It was also submitted that crude glycerin has not at all been sold by HLL and, therefore, invoking the average sale price in respect of this product is not correct. This submission has not been considered by the original authority and, therefore, we find that this matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner to consider this submission. We make it clear that no penalty is imposable under Sec 11AC of the Central Excise Act and extended period cannot be invoked in respect of this demand. In view of the discussions above, we set aside the demand of Rs. 1,73,89,261/- and remand the other two issues to the Commissioner for deciding the same afresh in the light of our observations in the order. The appeal is partly allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in court on 7-12-2009)
-
2009 (12) TMI 845
... ...
... ... ..... ,36,800/- is not sustainable. 4. As regards the demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 3684/-, the appellant had issued some debit notes and according to them, these debit notes had been issued in respect of cash discount given by the supplier. The department contends that this is not the practice and that these debit notes much have been issued on the quantity of short receipt. Other than this presumption, there is no evidence regarding short receipt of the inputs. The Cenvat credit in respect of the short receipt of inputs can be denied only if there is evidence in this regard. While in this case, it is only the presumption of the Department. In view of this, Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 3684/- is also not sustainable. 5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order upholding the demand of Rs. 5,36,800/- and Rs. 3684/- alongwith interest and imposing penalty of equal amount is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Order dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 844
Refund claim - whether the education cess and higher education cess which was paid along with excise duty in terms of N/N. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 as amended are also refundable along with excise duty paid under the said Notification? - Held that:- Notification No. 20/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 is pari materia to Notification No. 56/2002 dated 14-11-2002.
Held that:- The Tribunal in the case of Jindal Drugs Ltd. & Others [2009 (8) TMI 812 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] held that the refund of education cess and higher education cess under Notification No. 56/2002 dated 14-11-2002 is not admissible.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
........
|
