|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 71 of 71 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 91 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - whether Rule 10A of the Valuation Rules is applicable to the facts of the present case - assessee is inter alia engaged in the activity of body building at their factory on the motor vehicle chassis supplied by Tata Motors Limited - Perusal of the order of CESTAT dated 5th August 2008 clearly shows that the assessee voluntarily offered to make predeposit in that case, because, the issue being recurring in nature, the Tribunal would hear and disposed of the matter expeditiously - instead of deciding the earlier appeal filed by the assessee expeditiously, the Tribunal was not justified in directing the assessee to make predeposit in the present case by relying upon its earlier order - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (3) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Demand - Time barred - Held that: learned counsel for the Revenue has not been able to high-light any provision of law which may show that the scrap of iron and steel; or copper and brass or even plastic waste which is a packing material would be exigible items - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (3) TMI 89 - KERALA HIGH COURT
HC refused to interfere in a case where the appellant did not avail the remedy of statutory appeal within the permitted period. - however granted time tot eh appellant to clear the entire arrears within six months.
-
2012 (3) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT
Denial of exemption under Notification No.175 /86-CE dated 1.3.1986 on ground of value of clearance exceeding 30 lacs - value of the clearance of goods falling under Heading 84.37 though exempt from payment of duty under Notification No.111 /88 dated 1.3.1988 taken into account while computing the value of clearances for the purpose of Notification No.175 /86 on ground of non-availing of exemption by assessee - manufacturer of goods falling under CH 32 and 84 – Held that:- In our view, merely because the assessee, maybe, by mistake pays duty on the goods which are exempted from such payment, does not mean that the goods would become goods liable for duty under the Act. Secondly, merely because the assessee has not claimed any refund on the duty paid by him would not come in the way of claiming benefit of the Notification No.175 /86-CE dated 1.3.86. Therefore, Order of the Tribunal is set aside and adjudicating authority is directed to apply the Notification dated 1.3.86 in the assessee's case without taking into consideration the excess duty paid by the assessee under the Notification dated 1.3.1988 - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of `Povidone Iodine Cleansing Solution USP' and 'Wokadine Surgical Scrub' - assessee contending it to be medicaments classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3003 whereas Revenue contends it to be detergents classifiable under chapter sub-heading 3402.90 on ground of presence of the surface active agent and other substances in it – Held that:- Combined factor that requires to be taken note of for the purpose of the classification of the goods are the composition, the product literature, the label, the character of the product and the user to which the product is put. However, the miniscule quantity of the prophylactic ingredient is not a relevant factor. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that this is used by the surgeons for the purpose of cleaning or degerming their hands and scrubbing the surface of the skin of the patient before that portion is operated upon. The purpose is to prevent the infection or disease. Therefore, the product in question can be safely classified as a "medicament" which would fall under chapter sub-heading 3003 which is a specific entry and not under chapter sub-heading 3402.90 which is a residuary entry – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit – manufacture of Asbestos Cement Sheets – denial of exemption under Notification No.6/2002 – Revenue denied the plea on ground that no prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner and no supporting documents had been furnished to substantiate existence of 'financial hardship' – Held that:- While dealing with the application twin requirements of considerations i.e., consideration of undue hardship aspect and imposition of conditions to safeguard the interest of Revenue have to be kept in view. In present case, it could be inferred that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case in the said appeal. Tribunal ought to have waived condition of pre-deposit, even if financial hardship had not been shown to exist or proved by acceptable evidence, as held by the Supreme court, in RAVI GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, DELHI. However, in order to safeguard interests of the revenue, petitioner is directed to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum of ₹ 4.50 crores for hearing of the appeal by Tribunal.
-
2012 (3) TMI 38 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Jurisdiction defect – penalty imposed under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 for alleged wrong availment of credit on capital goods – Revenue's case is that there were no goods cleared at all from supplier of capital goods located at Indore – appellant factory situated at Nasik - Held that:- The order is not specific as to how there is jurisdiction vested with CCE, Indore for imposing penalty for taking wrong Cenvat credit in Nasik or how the provisions of Rule 209A or Rule 26 is applicable to the situation. Thus no merit is found in the argument for imposing penalty under aforesaid Rules and vesting of jurisdiction with CCE, Indore for credit taken in Nasik factory – penalty order set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 37 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of the reference application filed u/s 35H by Revenue - whether substantial question of law arises - Tribunal allowed refund claimed on duty paid under protest on input manufactured by the assessee and captively consumed in the manufacture of final product - Held that:- In this case, final product is sold at market price which is same for all products manufactured and sold by every manufacturer. It is the duty of the assessee to prove that market price at which they sold the product does not include duty on input paid under protest. Therefore, substantial question of law arises that whether Tribunal was justified in holding that there is no unjust enrichment thereby entitling the assessee for refund of the duty paid under protest on input.Tribunal is directed to draw up a Statement of the case and refer the above question for decision by this Court.
-
2012 (3) TMI 15 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Denial of Modvat Credit of duty paid on the angles, channels etc. on the ground of it being used as supporting structures – assessee contended that small portion of steel items were used as structures and the majority of the same were used for fabrication of capital goods - Chartered Engineer's certificate placed indicating quantum of steel items used for fabrication of capital goods - Held that:- We find that the observations made by the adjudicating authority are factually incorrect, and since issue revolves around the quantum of steel items used as either structural or capital goods, we find that the said certificate is required to be re-examined by the Commissioner. Hence, we remand the matter to Commissioner for de-novo adjudication. Further, we direct the Commissioner to re-decide the other issues relatable to availability of credit in respect of welding electrodes used for repair & maintenance of P&M or the availability of capital consumption notification to the angles, channels etc. being manufactured by the appellants.
-
2012 (3) TMI 14 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Classification of the parts and accessories of optical fibre cables under heading 9033 – Revenue claiming it to be under heading 8544 – Held that:- In as much as the optical fibre cables fall under Chapter 90 as held in case of Optel Telecommunication Ltd (2005 - TMI - 53974 - CESTAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi), the parts would fall under Chapter 90.33 – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of add-on cards and motherboards and relevant rate of duty leviable – under heading 8473.00 or 8471.00 – Held that:- This Court, on number of occasions, has observed that Tribunal is the last fact finding authority on facts. See Standard Radiators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, (2002 - TMI - 46236 - Supreme Court Of India). In present acse, Tribunal merely proceeds to decide the issue on the ground that the assessee had earlier classified the goods in question under Sub-Heading No. 8473.00, and therefore, it was not open to him to claim classification under Sub-Heading No.8471.00. In a commodity classification, it is essential that the character and uses of the commodity and its parts are considered in detail and examined thoroughly. Therefore, we remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the issue after considering the nature and the functions of add-on cards and motherboards in the functioning of Automatic Data Processing Machines.
|
