|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 3806 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1608 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Demand - Contravention of Rule 8 (1), 8(3) and 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Rule 3 (4) of CCR 2004 - appellants defaulted payment of duty on consignment basis through PLA and the duty paid through cenvat credit should be treated as improper duty payment - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Central Excise [2015 (5) TMI 603 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that duty payment through cenvat credit is treated as proper duty payment - the orders of the adjudicating authority demanding duty along with interest and penalty are set aside and the appeals are allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1605 - SC ORDER
Area based exemption - the decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA Versus KAMAKHYA COSMETICS AND PHARMACEUTICALS [2014 (11) TMI 1187 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT] referred - Held that: - Pending further orders, we direct that subject to the petitioners releasing 50% of the amount due to the respondent in terms of the impugned judgment on the respondents' furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional commissioner, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed - We further direct that contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall subject to their releasing 50% of the amount as stated above remain stayed.
The needful shall be done within four weeks from today - appeal allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1598 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Manufacture - various types of scrap/waste of packing material remaining after removal of inputs therefrom and the scrap of grinding sludge and used/mixed oil and effluent water - as all the waste and scrap are excisable, the duty was sought to be demanded on the value of waste other than the scrap of grinding sludge - Held that: - the scrap of packing material is nothing but scrap/waste of packing material in which the appellants have received various inputs required for manufacture of final products. These scrap/waste have not been manufactured by the appellant and have not been arisen during the course of manufacturing of their final products. Therefore the said scrap/waste have not passed the test of manufacture. In the circumstances, the duty is not payable as held by the Apex Court in the case of West Coast Industrial Gases Ltd. (supra). As the waste and scrap does not pass the test of manufacture, therefore, no duty is payable by the appellants.
Demand - Emergence of scrap of grinding sludge and used/mixed scrap of effluent water - Held that: - the entire quantity of duty paid inputs have been used in relation to the manufacture of dutiable final product. For manufacture of required quantity of final product, the appellants used predetermined quantities of the inputs resulting in the emergence of the dutiable final product. Therefore, it is not possible for the appellant to manufacture the desired dutiable final product by using a lesser quantity of the inputs, so as to avoid the generation of the waste. Therefore the entire quantity of the duty paid inputs was used in the manufacture of final products and not in relation to the manufacture of the waste/scrap. Therefore, the emergence cannot be waste part of the goods have been used to manufacture such waste.
THE waste is not on account of manufacture, therefore, the appellants are not liable to pay duty. - appeal allowed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1597 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Disallowance of CENVAT credit - penalty imposed - Held that:- Proceedings against the appellant were initiated much after the disputed amount was fully paid. It would appear the payment under protest has prompted such proceedings. In any case, the appellant never disputed the issue on merits from the beginning except to the fact that the reversal was made under protest. This is also a fact that the credit availed was reflected in the statutory records and the eligibility was examined by the audit from such records only. The Original Authority considered the facts of the case and did not impose penalty. The Appellate Authority imposed equal penalty on the ground that the demand covered extended period. As already noted when the need for issue of demand itself is not properly justified, there is no ground to impose equal penalty in the present case.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1596 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claims hit by the bar of unjust enrichment in terms of Section 12B - Held that:- We find that the Assistant Director (Cost) of the department indicated in his report dated 23-12-2005 that in the year 2003-04 a sum of ₹ 30,35,826/- was deposited as duty under protest. The said amount was shown as ‘loans and advances’ in the balance sheet. The AD (Cost) further indicated that the costing of some varieties also shows that the cost did not include 15%. In his further report dated 23-2-2006 he stated that the respondent have not passed on incidence of said duty to their customer. We also notice that in this case the respondent is a job worker and showing the excise duty separately in the Excise invoice. Further, the respondent had also submitted a certificate of Chartered Accountants to state that they (respondents) had not recovered excise duty on additional 15% cost of grey fabrics from the customers.
There is no legal basis to interfere with the impugned order. No valid ground has been made out in the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1595 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Value determination for cenvat credit - payment of duty at the rate applicable at the time of clearance in terms of Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - whether word used in Rule 3(4) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 is “such goods” and not “said goods” - Held that:- We find the provision of sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 and the subsequent clarifications of the Board are very clear. The amount of duty on the goods cleared as such on which Cenvat credit was availed earlier by the manufacturer will be governed by the said Rules. We do not find any reason to interpret “such goods” or “said goods” in this situation. The goods on which credit has been availed has been cleared as such and duty applicable on the date of such clearance has been paid. We find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1594 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Remission of duty on raw materials, finished goods and work in progress - loss by fire - Held that: - the ld. Commissioner have erred in rejecting the claim on extraneous considerations, in view of the consent to operate granted by the ‘Fire Department’. Further, the Fire Department (Competent Authority) have certified that there is no foul play, and fire is due to reasons beyond control. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order so far remission have been denied on semi-finished goods or work in progress and the finished goods. The appellant, it is held, is entitled to remission on loss of finished goods and semi-finished goods - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1593 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine removal of goods - manufacture of Industrial Valve - descriptions of the goods are not tallying between the invoice and the purchase order - Held that: - I find that both the lower authorities rejected the refund claim only on the ground that some of the reference and description of goods are not tallying between the invoice and the purchase order issued by the customer. However, the facts that the price was charged on higher side and excess duty paid thereupon is not under dispute. I find that to avoid any doubt or confusion on the fact that whether the price was charged wrongly on higher side and accordingly excess duty was paid, the customer M/s. BPCL issued a letter where it was mentioned that the actual unit price for the item is ₹ 36495 but the appellant has wrongly invoiced at ₹ 3,64,495/-. Accordingly, corresponding value and the duty was also charged on the higher side. However, the customer have corrected the invoice and the payment towards that invoice No. 439 dt. 30.4.2009 was made as per the reduced/corrected amount. I have also observed that in the payment advice issued by M/s. BPCL, it is clearly mentioned therein that against the invoice No. 439 dt. 30.4.2009 the payment of only ₹ 6,76,732/- was made, as against the value shown in the invoice i.e. ₹ 14,15,748/-.
All the doubt stands cleared that the appellant has charged higher amount inadvertently and accordingly the excess duty was also paid. With the above factual position, I do not find any reason why the refund should not be granted to the appellant for the excess paid duty. As per my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for the refund in respect of excess paid duty. I therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1587 - SC ORDER
Provisional Assessment - Demand of interest on payment of differential duty before formal finalization of assessment - Held that:- We do not find any merit in this petition. HC order confirmed [2015 (2) TMI 794 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] saying the liability to pay interest arises on any amount payable to Central Government and consequent to order for final assessment under Rule 7 subrule (3). We are in agreement with the Assessee in the present case that the later part of sub-rule (4) is not attracted. The liability to pay interest on any amount payable to Central Government consequent to order for final assessment is not a situation to be found in the present case.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1585 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand - whether the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of canopies has to be addressed by the nature of process undertaken by the appellant - Held that: - The documentary evidences in respect of all the canopies procured by the appellant either from job worker or by purchase indicated that the impugned goods were obtained by the appellants from these sources - In the absence of any supporting evidence adduced by the Revenue to establish any manufacture of impugned goods by the appellant at their Delhi unit prior to July, 2000 and taking into consideration the evidences submitted by the appellants regarding purchase of capital machinery and electricity consumption during the year 2000 - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1584 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - Held that: - delay condoned for filing appeal against the case of Vijay Kumar Arora and M/s. VK. Industries & others Versus CCE., Delhi-I [2014 (4) TMI 420 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - appeal dismissed.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1583 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Denial of CENVAT credit on cement - cement used for stabilization of hazardous waste namely jerositewaste product emerged during the course of manufacture of non-ferrous metal - Held that: - the issue has already been settled by the appellant's own case M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jaipur [2015 (10) TMI 1558 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] relied upon where it was held that appellant has used cement for stabilization of hazardous waste 'jarosite' as toxic effluent at secured land fill which is part and parcel of their manufacturing activity. In these terms, we hold that appellant has correctly taken cenvat credit.
Denial of CENVAT credit not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1582 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
SSI exemption - benefit of N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - use of brand name of others - ‘Paras’ - ‘Wonder 555' - whether brand name belonged to others or it did not belong to anyone, thus, making it eligible for use by anyone, and avail SSI exemption? - Held that: - N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, inter alia, states that “exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not of another person. ……” It is thus evident that to deny the benefit of the said exemption to the impugned goods, it has to be established that the brand names ‘Paras’ and ‘Wonder 555’ belonged to some other person(s). We are not in agreement with the contention of the ld. DR that if the brand names did not belong to the appellant, they necessarily belonged to others, as we find this contention fallacious because a brand name or trade name need not necessarily belong to someone in which case everybody would be entitled to use it. We find that in the primary adjudication order as well as the impugned order it is nowhere claimed, leave alone shown, that these brand names belonged to some other person(s) and consequently the very basis for denial of benefit under N/N. 9/2003-C.E. collapses.
Benefit of notification available - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1577 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claim - payment by cash before sanction of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - no minimum balance of AED - BED eligible for payment of AED - whether refund claim justified on the ground that BED was eligible for payment of AED? - Held that: - there is no provision of law to entertain such claim for refund. The appellant paid amount due to the Government by cash instead of using credit, as claimed by them. There is no wrong payment. No amount has been paid in excess to the Government as there is no ground for any return of money by way of refund to the appellant - refund not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1570 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Rejection of refund claim - grounds of limitation - Held that: - The transaction on which duty was paid was a domestic clearance. The appellants have not exported the goods themselves but have supplied against the CT-1 to a domestic buyers who may have in turn exported the goods. Commissioner (Appeals) has made an error in considering it as export and relying on clause (a) to the Explanation (B) of Section 11B for calculating the period of limitation. He should have relied on clause (f) to Explanation (B) of Section 11B, which clarifies the date of payment of duty shall be the relevant date. Since the appellant had paid duty in the month of May, 09 and filed a refund claim in April, 2010, the claim is not barred by limitation.
Grounds of unjust enrichment - Held that: - the appellants have not been given opportunity to defend their case. They could not produce certificate of Chartered Accountant or any other documents before the lower authorities as they were never asked to establish their case against unjust enrichment - Matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the issue of unjust enrichment after considering the documents produced by the appellant.
Jurisdiction of Tribunal to hear the appeal - Held that: - The appellants had paid duty on the domestic transaction - refund sought cannot be equated with the rebate - Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Appeal disposed off - matter remanded to decided the issue of unjust enrichment.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1569 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Availability of CENVAT on services received outside the factory - input services - 'place of removal' as per Section 4(3)(c) of the Central Excise Act - Held that: - The decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Adani Pharmachem (P) Ltd. [2008 (7) TMI 102 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] apply where it was held that prior to 2008, the period of which the dispute relate, the definition of input service included services “used by the manufacturer where directly or indirectly, in or in relation to manufacture of final products from the place of removal”. The words “from the place of removal” were subsequently changed to “upto the place of removal” on 1.4.2008. - prior to 2008, there was no restriction on availment of input services even if, they were received after removal - CENVAT credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1563 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Cenvat demand and penalty - Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules ,2004 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - quantity of zinc cleared under Rule 5(a) of CCR, 2004 were not returned after necessary processes at the job workers premises - whether the zinc initially sent for job work against challan Nos. 16 and 19 dated 7th July, 2007 and 9th July, 2007 respectively, were used in the galvanization by the job worker or otherwise.
Held that:- I have carefully examined the challan No. 12 where under initially 200 pcs. of steel channels, sleepers sent on 20/6/2007 were returned after carrying out the process of galvanization on 31/7/2007 by the said job worker M/s. Standard Galvanizing, to whom the disputed quantity of zinc was also sent against challan No. 16 and 19. Also, on comparing the challan No. 12, 16 and 19, I find that the nature of process mentioned in challan No. 12 was Galvanizing only whereas in Challan Nos. 16 and 19 galvanizing into Steel Channels, Sleepers. Therefore, in my view the zinc that had been sent against Challan No. 16 and 19, after sending the 200 pcs. of steel channels, were exhausted in the process of galvanizing, as is evident from the endorsement recorded in the challan No. 12, while returning the 200 pcs. of steel channels after undertaking the process of galvanization. Therefore, the appellant could establish that the quantity of zinc sent for galvanization were duly exhausted in galvanizing 200 pcs. of steel channels. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2015 (12) TMI 1556 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Duty liability - clearance of waste and scrap of various metals without payment of central excise duty - these metal scrap arose during upgradation, maintenance and replacement of various plant and machineries - Held that:- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that metal scrap and waste arising out of repair and maintenance work of the machinery used in the manufacture of cement by no stretch of imagination can be treated as a subsidiary product to the cement, which is the main product. The repair & maintenance of capital goods result in the metal scrap and the same cannot be subjected to central excise duty. In the case of Shriram Alkali & Chemicals Vs. CCE, Surat [2010 (8) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal following the decision in the case of Indian Cement ltd. [2006 (7) TMI 675 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] held that the scrap which is generated from capital goods is not covered by the scope of various heading ‘waste and scrap of metals’. In Birla Corporation Ltd. [2004 (12) TMI 154 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], the Tribunal held that waste and scrap generated carrying out of repair and maintenance of capital goods cannot be said to be manufactured goods. Similar view has been taken by the Tribunal in Rajshree Sugar & Chemicals [2008 (5) TMI 494 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and many other cases. By considering the above decisions, the impugned order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2015 (12) TMI 1554 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Unjust enrichment - Refund claim - duty paid on intermediate goods captively consumed - appellant submitted unsigned Chartered Accountant's certificate in de novo proceedings rather than in the original one - Held that:- the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that appellant have produced the certificate with the Appeal Memorandum. He further, observed that it is a certificate typed on computer on a plain paper having no signature, date or name and address of the person, if any, who issued or to be issued by the same. Such a type written matter can by no stretch of imagination be considered as a Chartered Accountant's certificate. It is found that the appellant had not given any explanation as to why they have not produced the certificate before the Tribunal in the earlier occasion and even before the lower authorities. Hence, we do not find any substance in the submission of the appellant.
The other submission of the appellant is that the Revenue should issue the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act 1944. It is found that the present denovo proceeding was initiated in terms of the order of the Tribunal. This issue was not raised before the Tribunal in the earlier occasions. It is also noticed that the appellant had not challenged the order of the Tribunal before the higher appellate authority. Therefore we find that both the authorities had examined the matter as per the directions of the order of the Tribunal. So, there is no error in the order passed by the lower authorities. - Decided against the appellant
-
2015 (12) TMI 1541 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Rejection of refund claim - CENVAT Credit availed by appellants did not represent duty of excise - Held that:- The issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in Neuland Laboratories Ltd Vs C C E Hyderabad [2013 (11) TMI 1339 - CESTAT BANGALORE ]. Further that the appeal filed by the Revenue against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh upholding the judgment of the Tribunal Commissioner Vs Neuland Laboratories Ltd. (2015 (10) TMI 669 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT].
It is not disputed that the appellants purchased the inputs/ethanol from the suppliers. It is also not disputed that the appellants paid duty on the goods. The credit is sought to be denied at the end of the receiving manufacturer on the ground that no duty is payable on the goods. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
