|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3806 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1887
Captive Consumption of Molasses - Manufacturing of Rectified Spirit and ENA - benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE on Molasses captively used in the manufacture of Rectified Spirit and ENA.
HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1884
Seeking payment of the rebate in cash, on exports made in terms of the erstwhile Rule 57 F (13) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Though various issues are raised in this Writ Petition, and defending the same, a counter affidavit is also filed, now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, it would be suffice, if a direction is issued to the respondent to adjudicate the issue, which culminated in the issuance of show cause notice, dated 09.02.2000 alone, after affording due opportunity to the petitioner to fortify its case. Insofar as the claim made by the petitioner, vide Application, dated 30.11.1998, regarding payment of statutory interest on the refund amount is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner would not press upon the interest on the refund amount, and to that effect, the petitioner has also filed an undertaking affidavit today, specifically stating that they will not claim the statutory interest payable on the refund, subject to the sanction of refund to the petitioner by the respondent.
The writ petition is disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1831
Condonation of delay of 60 days in filing of appeal - appellant received the notice for hearing of condonation application, but on 28-10-2013, he did not appear and the appeal was dismissed in default - appellant applied for restoration of appeal on the ground that notice was received by his untrained staff, who did not inform him about the date of hearing on 28-10-2013 - HELD THAT:- The Court should endeavour to decide the appeal on merit, instead of dismissing it on technical ground and for any pardonable lapse on the part of party, cost can be imposed. We, therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the impugned order and direct the Tribunal to restore the appeal on a cost of ₹ 5000/-.
The appellant shall now appear before the Tribunal on 21-12-2015 - Appeal allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1822
Maintainability of appeal - substantial questions of law - HELD THAT:- The appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law.
List and connect along with Central Excise Appeal Nos. - 2 of 2015 and 4 of 2015.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1778
Continuation of Order passed - no stay order obtained - benefit of exemption - Held that:- Though Special Leave Petition was filed, the respondents have not obtained any stay order and, as such, the order in question still operates - all the industries set up pursuant to the policy of 1997 and 2007 shall continue to enjoy the benefits of full exemption as per the policy and the notifications - petition disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1774
CENVAT Credit - outward goods transportation agency service - Held that:- This issue is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that By no stretch of imagination can it be stated that outward transportation service would not be a service used by the manufacturer for clearance of final products from the place of removal - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1754
Maintainability of appeal - in the impugned order Redemption fine of ₹ 1,82,392/- has been imposed on M/s. Metro but in appeal memo the amount of redemption fine has been mentioned as ₹ 2 lakhs - Held that: - the Committee of Commissioners has directed that the appeals is to be filed against M/s. Metro recording the fact that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the Redemption Fine to ₹ 1,82,392/- and no proposal for imposing penalty on M/s. Metro but, in the Appeal Memo, the amount of Redemption Fine is shown as ₹ 2,00,000/- and penalty on M/s. Metro is proposed, the same is contrary to the Review Order. As the Revenue has not corrected the said discrepancies pointed out by the respondents, therefore, I hold that the appeal filed against M/s. Metro is defective, hence not maintainable.
The review order directs to file the appeal to the extent of demand of ₹ 28,07,0897- whereas in the appeal memo the amount of duty has been mentioned as ₹ 36,88,077/- and penalty was also sought to be imposed of ₹ 36,88,077/- - Held that: - appeal is defective. On that account itself, appeal is not maintainable against M/s. Pymen Cable India.
In the Review Order, there is no proposal to file the appeal against Shri Sandeep Garg and M/s. Ashok Cables Corpn - maintainability of appela against these persons - Held that: - in the impugned order, no penalty has been imposed on M/s. Metro. But M/s. Metro and Shri Sandeep Garg have challenged the impugned order before this Tribunal in Appeal Nos. E/120 & 121 of 2010 wherein this Tribunal held that no allegations are sustainable against them, therefore, no penalty is imposable on Shri Sandeep Garg, accordingly - appeal dismissed.
The Committee of Commissioners has proposed to file appeal against M/s. Ashok Cable Corporation, therefore, the prayer of the learned Counsel is not acceptable that the Committee of Commissioners has not proposed to file appeal against M/s. Ashok Cable Corporation - As there is no arguments advanced on the merits in this appeal, the same is required to be heard on merits, therefore, the Registry is directed to list the said appeal for hearing on 22.01.2016.
Application disposed off.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1683
Restoration of appeal - appeal dismissed on account of failure to make pre-deposit - Held that: - When the question is only of pre-deposit not having been made and the appeal having been dismissed without consideration on merits, Courts have taken somewhat liberal stand in allowing the party to pursue the appeal by fulfilling such requirement even after substantial time gap - appeal restored before the CESTAT on the condition that the petitioner fulfills the pre-deposit requirement latest by 15-1-2016 - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1668
Imposition of penalties - CENVAT credit availed on the basis of forged invoices - whether, penalty can be imposed on the appellants in the terms of Rule 15(1) and 15(2) ibid? - Held that: - the conditions of Rule 3 ibid has not been violated in this case. The documents available in the case file show that the appellant was not aware of the fact regarding non-payment of Central Excise duty by the supplier of raw Bidis into the Central Government account - filing of FIR and lodgment of the criminal case by the appellant prove the fact that appellant was not aware of non-payment/deposit of the duty by the suppliers of goods and that based on the invoice / TR-6 Challan the cenvat credit was taken by it on receipt of the raw Bidis into the factory. Thus, malafides cannot be attributed to the appellants, justifying imposition of penalties - penalties set aside - the matter is remanded to the original authority for necessary verification of the actual cenvat credit involved in the case, which can be reversed by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1655
CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the disputed goods are not confirming to either inputs or capital goods for the purpose of taking cenvat credit - Held that: - impugned order has been passed based on documents submitted by the respondent. Since, upon analysis of the factual aspect, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that cenvat credit is available on the disputed goods, I do not find any reason to deny the cenvat credit on the ground that the same have not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product by the respondent - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1654
Interest for delayed sanction of refund - Section 11BB of the CEA, 1944 - relevant date for calculation of interest - Held that: - the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB ibid commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application of refund under sub-section (1) of Section 11B ibid. Time taken for verification of documents, issuance of show cause notice and adjudication of the dispute by Revenue should be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period for sanctioning the refund - In this case, since the assessee had submitted all the desired documents on 22.11.2004, such date should be considered as the relevant date for filing the refund application. Since the refund amount was not paid within three months from the date of its filing, the assessee is entitled for interest from the date of expiry of three months from filing the refund application i.e. 21.02.2005, till the date of actual payment of the refund amount i.e. 03.01.2006 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1644
Refund - No supporting document - No revised application of refund - Notification No. 46/94-C.E. - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - It is a settled issue that benefit under a conditional notification cannot be extended in case of non-fulfillment of conditions and/or non-compliance of procedure prescribed therein as held by the Apex Court in the case of Government of India v. Indian Tobacco Association - [2005 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]; Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors - [2008 (9) TMI 52 - SUPREME COURT].
Government observes that the point which needs to be emphasized is that when the applicant seeks rebate under Notification No. 46/1994-N.T., dated 22-9-1994, which prescribes compliance of certain conditions, the same cannot be ignored - Government finds that there is no provisions under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 for condonation of non-compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down in the notification allowing rebate under said rule.
Government therefore, holds that the original authority has rightly rejected the claims filed by the applicant for not giving break up of amounts claimed for the respective periods and the provisions under which claim made; non-submission of proper documents; and not following the procedure laid down under Para (ii) and Para (vi) of Notification No. 46/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1998 for the period 18-9-1998 to 15-10-1998 - Application revision rejected.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1643
Rebate - Rule 18 of CER, 2002 - The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 03-10/Kol-III/2013, dated 15-2-2013 held that as the goods were exempted, any amount which is not payable in terms of Section 3 read with Section 4 ibid does not have the character of duty and were not eligible for rebate under Rule 18 ibid. He ordered the same to be repaid in cash along with interest under Section 11AB ibid.
Held that: - when the goods are absolutely exempted from payment of duty, the assessee cannot pay duty as per Section 5A(1A) proviso wherein it has been provided “that where an exemption under sub-section (1) in respect of any excisable goods from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon has been granted absolutely, the manufacturer of such excisable goods shall not pay the duty of excise on such goods” - The amount so paid cannot be treated as duty under Section 3 of the Act and therefore, not admissible as rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-1-2004 as Rule 18 authorizes refund of duty only.
Government also observes that C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 423/56/98-CX, dated 22-9-1998 relied upon by the applicant was issued in 1998 and subsequently the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay had delivered above said judgment referred in Para 15.1 which was also upheld by the Apex Hon’ble Supreme Court - Application rejected.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1641
Classification - Rebate - Interest - Diesel engines or centrifugal pumps - Held that: - it is observed that while a diesel engine is a compression ignition engine or an internal combustion engine, a centrifugal pump is a pump, driven by a motor/turbine such as an internal combustion engine, for moving liquids such as water. The centrifugal pumps are, as per HSN Explanatory Notes, appropriately classifiable under Tariff Heading 8413 70 - The diesel engines are employed in the composite machines viz. diesel engine driven centrifugal pumps, only to power drive the machine, i.e., centrifugal pumps. Such machines are, therefore, appropriately classifiable under Tariff Heading 8413 70 19 and not 8408 90 90 of the Tariff.
On the issue relating to whether interest is recoverable from the applicant on the rebate paid erroneously to them, Government observes that recoveries of duties not levied or not paid and interest thereof are governed by Section 11A and Section 11AB (now Section 11AA) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - If taxes have been erroneously refunded upon export, they are required to be paid back to the exchequer in the same form as they were received. Further retention of amounts not due to them lawfully has placed the amount in the hands of the applicant and the exchequer must be compensated for such deprivation due to cash rebate taken incorrectly by the applicant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has therefore, erred in holding that no interest is chargeable under Section 11AA ibid on the amount erroneously refunded to the applicant.
Cash rebate of the excess amount paid was clearly not payable to them and has been allowed as recredit in their Cenvat credit account by the Commissioner (Appeals) relying upon the view taken by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI reported in 2009 [2008 (9) TMI 176 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT ] - Revision application are disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1640
Rebate claim - rejection on account of non-production of proper proof of export - Held that: - the export of duty paid excisable goods cleared from factory cannot be established and the lower authorities have rightly concluded that export of duty paid goods is not established in this case - rebate claim is not admissible to the applicant u/r 18 of CER, 2002 read with N/N. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - revision application rejected.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1638
Clandestine removal - precipitated calcium carbonate - Revenue's claim that the appellant is engaged in the activity of manufacturing precipitated calcium carbonate which attracts duty and the same has been cleared by the appellant in the guise of calcium carbonate which attracts nil rate of duty thereby evading payment of duty - Held that: - The report of CRCL clearly shows that the samples drawn do not conform to the specification of precipitated calcium carbonate as per IS : 8767-1978. On the said report, no finding has been given by the chemical examiner with regard to classification but clearly stated that these are the samples drawn are not of precipitated calcium carbonate. As it is fact on record, the appellant is manufacturer of lime stone, quick lime powder, calcite which are chargeable to nil rate of duty under CTH 2521 00 90. 2522 10 00 and 2530 90 30 respectively. In that circumstance, without any corroborative evidence, it cannot be alleged that the appellant is only manufacturing precipitated calcium carbonate.
It is alleged that stock of 337 MT of precipitated calcium carbonate and 42 MT of quick lime powder which are not entered in the RG-1 register. We have seen that opening balance on 5-6-2007 as per RG-1 register. As 95 MT, 27 MT, 118 MT, 110 MT and 11 MT of precipitated calcium carbonate and production for the day 5-6-2007 was to be recorded on 6-6-2007 and the same could not be recorded due to visit of DGCEI officers on 6-6-2007 - it cannot be alleged that the seized goods were not entered in the RG-1 regiser - the demand is set aside.
The raw material i.e. lime stone 40000 MT, pet coke 1000 MT and charcoal 1000 MT were also seized. The said quantity has been arbitrarily taken by eye estimation and no verification report/chart prepared and it is not possible to verify the said huge quantity of raw material in a single day - the allegation of non-accountal of goods in the statutory record is not sustainable.
Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1636
Impposition of penalty u/r 25 - Held that: - none of the ingredients itemized in Rule 25 of the Rules have any application in the present case, justifying imposition of penalty - Though, non-payment of duty within the stipulated time frame is a contravention of the statutory provisions, but in absence of any proof regarding the involvement of the respondent in any fraudulent activity concerning fraud, collusion, suppression, etc., with intent to evade payment of duty, imposition of penalty is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1634
Waiver of pre-deposit - Whether the value of brought out items be included in the assessable value of the cooling towers assembled at site - We find that on similar issue involving the same assesse, we have directed to deposit seven half percent of the confirmed duty. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to deposit seven and half percent of ₹ 1,33,68,404/- within a period of eight weeks and on deposit of the said amount, balance dues adjudged would stand waived and its recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1626
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - Held that: - there are four Appeals and in each appeal amount involved is less than ₹ 5 Lakhs. Even if total amount which is ₹ 5,85,741/- is taken for the purpose of monetary limit, now as per the revised amount in the Board's Instruction dated 17-12-2015, the appeals involving ₹ 10 Lakhs and below are liable to be dismissed as per litigation policy - Appeals filed by the Revenue on litigation policy dismissed, being not maintainable.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1619
Denial of exemption under N/N. 49/50-2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 - area based exemption - whether the appellant has commenced the commercial production on or before 31-3-2010 to avail the benefit of Notification No. 49/50-2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003 or not? - Held that: - the appellant has cleared the goods on commercial consideration and the production of goods is not in dispute. The appellant has sold the goods against consideration therefore, the clearance made by the appellant qualifies the definition of commercial production.
The appellant has commenced the commercial production on 31-3-2010, therefore, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 49/50-2003-C.E., dated 10-6-2003.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
