|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2336 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... . ORDER Delay Condoned. Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 687
... ...
... ... ..... ent, State Excise, etc., are not to be paid by the purchaser. It has not been mentioned that the liability to pay the outstanding dues of Central Excise is also exempted. Even terms of the notice inviting tenders goes against the petitioner. Therefore, it is to be held that dues of the Central Excise have to be paid by the purchaser and they were not excluded in the conditions subject to which auction was held. In the conveyance deed also, no provision could be pointed out by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner indicating that the dues of Central Excise, if existing against the predecessor, the same would not be recovered from the successor. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no ground to quash the impugned demand notices, which have been issued, they are found to be justified. 13. Resultantly, writ petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and the same is, hereby, dismissed with cost of ₹ 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand).
-
2011 (12) TMI 682
... ...
... ... ..... r a director or an officer of the company. The adjudicating officer has failed in this regard. On a perusal of the record it is noticed that the appellant has also failed to avail himself of the opportunities provided by the adjudicating officer and thereby failed in specifically answering the charges levelled in the show cause notice. The appellant has not put forward any argument upfront in respect of the provisions contained in Regulation 13(4) and 13(5) on which the show cause notice was based. 6. In view of the facts and legal position stated above, we remand the case to the Board for fresh consideration. The appellant shall file his reply or explanation, if any, within a period of three weeks from today. The Board shall consider the explanation / reply of the appellant and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Board for fresh consideration as mentioned above with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 670
... ...
... ... ..... Court in the case of SAIL Vs. Commissioner 2008 (229) ELT A127 (SC) has been analysed in detail by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal headed by the Hon’ble President in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore 2009 (242) ELT 545 (Tri. - Del.) and it has been held therein that for having rejected the SLP on consideration of the facts of the case it would mean that SLP was rejected by passing a speaking order and that the Courts subordinate to the Supreme Court are bound by such order, more particularly, bearing in mind the principle of judicial discipline vide para 20 of the said order in Vikram Cement (supra). Accordingly, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above in the case of SAIL (supra), it is held that the appellants are not eligible for CENVAT credit on welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of machineries. Consequently the impugned Order-in-Appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. (dictated and pronounced in court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 664
... ...
... ... ..... D/2011, dated 11-10-2011, has recorded as under “5. I have considered the submissions and I find that as submitted by the ld. Counsel, extended period was not invoked in the show cause notice and demand for interest was beyond the period of one year as prescribed under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, I also find that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sharavathy Conductors Pvt. Ltd., is squarely applicable to the facts of this case also. Accordingly, even though on merits demand for interest has to be sustained and is sustained, but on the ground of limitation, the demand cannot be upheld. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.” 6. We do not find any reason to take a different view in the case before us. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so. 8. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 660
... ...
... ... ..... ordered and is not in lieu thereof. That being the position, we cannot direct the release of seized goods on payment of Excise duty and penalty, which may be imposed. 11. We may observe here that the adjudication proceedings are pending since 25-1-2011. For one reason or the other, it has been held up. As the legible copies of relied upon documents has already been supplied to the petitioner on 19-12-2011, we direct the petitioner to submit his reply/explanation within a period of one month from today and the Respondent No. 1 or the authorised officer, who had issued the notice dated 25-1-2011 shall pass the final order in accordance with law within one month thereafter. 12. So far as M/s. Vasudev Udyog and M/s. Mayank Metal are concerned they are not before us and, therefore, we are not passing any order in respect of these two firms. The authorities may proceed in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 653
... ...
... ... ..... l itself for disposal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel submits that the issue involved in this case has been finally decided by this very Bench in the appellant’s own case for an earlier period. He produces copy of our Final Order No. A/1946/2011-WZB/AHD, dated 16-11-2011 2012 (278) E.L.T. 271 (Tribunal) . 5. Learned SDR would submit that the issue involved in the final order dated 16-11-2011 is in respect of the very same assessee and the period in this case is subsequent period as was decided. 6. On perusal of Order dated 16-11-2011, we find that the issue involved in that case and in the case in hand are identical and the same and in respect of the very same assessee. Since we have already upheld the assessee’s contention in that appeal by setting aside the impugned order. Accordingly, stay petition and appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 610
... ...
... ... ..... on production capacity and accordingly, the duty liability shall be reworked and the corresponding penalty of equal amount reworked under Section 11AC upheld. (iii) Interest demands on the amounts at (i) & (ii) are upheld. (iv) Penalty of ₹ 42 lakhs imposed under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules 2002, on TAG is set aside. (b) Appeal No. E/559/08 is disposed of by upholding the confiscation of the goods. The redemption fine of 50,000 is upheld. Penalty of ₹ 50,000/- imposed is also upheld. However, the demand of ₹ 2,85,634/- is set aside for the reasons recorded earlier. (c) Appeal No. E/70/2008 filed by Shri H.S. Nataraj, M.D. of TAG is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs imposed on him is upheld. (d) E/826/08 by M/s Embee Agencies is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 20,000/- imposed on them is upheld. (e) E/825/08 by M/s Whab Stores is rejected and the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed on them is upheld. (Pronounced in open court on .)
-
2011 (12) TMI 605
... ...
... ... ..... ated to the petitioner vide recovery notice dated 4th October, 2011 (Annexure A-1 with the application), within four weeks from today, no coercive steps shall be taken for recovery of the balance amount in terms of the said notice. Application stands disposed of.
-
2011 (12) TMI 566
... ...
... ... ..... ce of the stock transferred goods and accordingly benefit of the aforesaid judgment of the Larger Bench was made applicable. Therefore, we find that it is a question of appreciation of evidence as to whether relevant invoices had been produced before the authorities or otherwise as claimed by the Ld. Consultant. In our view, the appellant had not made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for complete waiver of pre deposit of the duty and penalty mentioned as above. After considering all aspects including the plea of financial hardship, we direct the applicant to deposit and amount of ₹ 60.00 Lakhs (Rupees Sixty Lakhs) within a period of eight weeks from today and on compliance of the same, the balance amount of duty and penalty on the appellant as well as on the Director stands waived. Failure to deposit of the same, the appeal will result in the dismissal without further notice. Compliance is to be made on (Operative part of the order pronounced in the court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 540
Refund claim - time limitation - section 11B of the Central Excise Act - whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for refund only on the ground of limitation?
-
2011 (12) TMI 537
Benefit of 25% of the penalty - Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act - time limitation - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the authorities have not given an option to the appellant-assessee for paying reduced the penalty in terms of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of K.P.Pouches [2008 (1) TMI 296 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the order-in-appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (12) TMI 527
Waiver of pre-deposit - Principles of Natural Justice - request for cross-examination was not allowed - The relied upon documents and non-relied documents were also not supplied to the applicants - Held that: - the Revenue provided opportunity to the applicants to cross-examine the witnesses but the applicants failed to come forward to cross-examine the witnesses. Opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the applicants but the applicants failed to avail the opportunity.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also financial hardship pleaded by the applicants, the applicants are directed to deposit ₹ 40 lakhs - application disposed off.
-
2011 (12) TMI 523
... ...
... ... ..... r No.467/10 dt. 27.9.2010 is allowed and the period of stay is further extended by six months or until the disposal of the appeals whichever is earlier. The Miscellaneous application is hereby allowed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 522
... ...
... ... ..... absconding and when Trial Court has issued warrant, the petitioner has approached this Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. The point that arises for my consideration is Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail? 8. It is relevant to note, the allegations are that on 24-12-2009, the complainant raided and seized 20 litres of liquor, one steel bucket and one plastic pot. It is alleged, the petitioner was illegally tapping and selling the arrack. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner was absconding and not available for investigation. When the Trial Court has issued warrant, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner has not availed anticipatory bail granted earlier. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.
-
2011 (12) TMI 514
Classification of goods - Classification of Stronic and Hivit Injections - Tribunal held that Stronic and Hivit Injections, manufactured by the present assessee have to be classified under Sub-Heading 3003.10, as claimed by them.
-
2011 (12) TMI 513
... ...
... ... ..... ) was rendered in somewhat different factual background wherein the petitioner before the Court itself had asserted that it was carrying out manufacturing activity and not the lessor. Observations of Bombay High Court in case of Shree Agency (supra), have been rendered in entirely different factual background and had no relation to responsibility for payment of duty and penalty in case of clandestine removal of goods. 15. It may be that the Tribunal in the present case committed an error in recording that case with respect to Shri Jariwala being lessee and carrying out manufacturing activity in such capacity, was never pleaded when in fact it was so pleaded before the lower authorities. However, in view of our observations and conclusions, we do not find that such error would be fatal to the entire order of the Tribunal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. 16. In view of order passed in Tax Appeal, Civil Application for stay does not survive. Same is dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 512
... ...
... ... ..... y to comply with the orders and directions issued by the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 16379 of 2011 dated 16-9-2011.
-
2011 (12) TMI 508
... ...
... ... ..... issioner (Appeals) had no power to condone the delay beyond 30 days? (ii) Whether approach of the Tribunal in regard to condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), is sustainable in law? (iii) Whether withdrawal of the second notice dated 14-12-2001, did not constitute sufficient cause for the Appellant not to pursue the matter any further? This resulted in filing of the appeal after a delay of 120 days? We find that the above mentioned question of law as framed by the appellant do not arise for consideration in view of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). It is the said judgment which had been relied upon by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant beyond the period of limitation. In view of the said fact, we do not find any substantial question of law arises for consideration. Dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 507
Waiver of pre deposit - Levy of anti dumping duty - Mis-declaration - Undue hardship. ... ... ... ... ..... eposit, may be revived and decided on merits, without insisting on any pre-deposit. Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue on the other hand, submits that having regard to the nature of the levy and the quantum of the amount involved, the impugned direction cannot be said to be unreasonable. Learned counsel asserts that, being in the nature of a discretionary order, this Court may not interfere with the same. Having perused the documents placed on record by the appellants, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be served if the appellants are directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 5 Crores as against ₹ 10 Crores, directed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we direct that if the appellants deposit the said amount within six weeks from today, their appeals, being Customs Appeal Nos. 387 & 388 of 2009, shall be revived by the Tribunal and disposed of on merits. The appeals stand disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.
........
|
