|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 3806 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1400 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - the case of the Revenue that Associated Capsules Ltd. was not manufacturing aluminium foils but was engaged in cutting/slitting jumbo rolls into smaller rolls and the said activity does not amount to manufacture and the duty discharged by M/s Associated Capsules Ltd. is not Central Excise duty. - Held that:- department filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner dropping the proceedings initiated against M/s Associated Capsules Ltd., before the Tribunal in appeal [2014 (2) TMI 721 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and the department's appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal as reported in [2014 (2) TMI 721 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and produced a copy of the same. I find that the Tribunal has upheld the duty discharged by M/s Associated Capsules Ltd. as correct and if that be so CENVAT credit taken by the respondent in the case in hand cannot be disputed, as the fulcrum of the revenue to deny credit on the ground that Associated Capsules could not have discharged duty, is now set aside. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1399 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant who has procured ethyl alcohol from M/s Andhra Sugars, on payment of duty of excise can be disallowed the credit of the said duty on the ground that the supplier of the inputs should not have paid the duty - Held that:- Revenue has not raised any objection at the time of payment of duty by M/s Andhra Sugars. It stands held in number of decisions that the recipient of the goods/inputs cannot be denied the CENVAT Credit of duty paid by the supplier of the inputs on the ground that the supplier should not have paid such duty. One such reference can be made to a latest decision of the Tribunal in the case of Cummins Diesel Sales & Service India Ltd Vs CCE Pune [2014 (11) TMI 238 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Reference can also be made to the majority decision of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd. Vs CCE Delhi [2014 (9) TMI 974 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where originally there was difference of opinion between two Members and as per the majority decision it was held that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to an assessee on the ground that manufacturer of final product was not required to pay duty by utilising the credit, as the activity at his end did not amount to manufacture. - there is no dispute that M/s Andhra Sugars cleared the inputs on payment of duty. As the issue is settled, I find no merits in the said stand of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1398 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of personal penalties on the directors and partners of the defaulting company and firms for wrong claim of SSI Exemption - Appeal of the Main Assessee was already dismissed for non compliance of stay order - Heldthat:- A. R. Majmudar was involved in wrong availment of SSI exemption benefit. Thus, the imposition of penalty on Shri Majmudar as Director of M/s. Bakul is justified. We agree with the submission of the Learned Advocate that the imposition of penalty on Shri A.R. Majmudar as partner of M/s Pocono is liable to set-aside, as he is already penalized as Director of M/s. Bakul on the same transaction. The imposition of penalty on Smt. A.A. Majmudar proprietress of M/s Shonar, we find that Smt. A.A. Majmudar had knowingly involved in irregular availment of the SSI exemption by M/s. Bakul. Hence, the imposition of penalty on her is justified. - Rule 209A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act, or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty. The expressions in any other reasons have wide amplitude. It is the case of Revenue that Mrs. Majmudar knowing fully was involved in wrong availment of benefit of SSI exemption by M/s. Bakul, who cleared the goods without payment of duty, liable for confiscation. - However, penalty imposed is reduced - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - No manufacturing activity is done - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit to the respondent on the ground that once the duty has been paid on the final product, the same should be treated as reversal of the ineligible credit taken on the inputs and there is no requirement for insisting the assessee again to pay/ reverse the cenvat credit. I find that the observations of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are in conformity with Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which provides that in case of removal of inputs as such from the factory, the manufacturer of final products shall pay an amount equal to the credit taken in respect of the inputs. Further, I find that the dispute in the present case has arisen because of the fact of taking cenvat credit on the disputed inputs used for conversion of the final product. Assuming that no credit has been taken for the activities not amounting to manufacture then there was no scope for payment of any Central Excise Duty on removal of final product. However, since the final product has suffered duty, reversal of credit taken by the Respondent on the inputs will not result in any loss of Revenue to the Government exchequer. - no infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1393 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of MODVAT Credit - appellant had removed molasses from the sugar factory to the Kachcha pit situated outside the factory premises - Held that:- Receipt of the disputed input i.e. molasses in the chemical unit of the appellant and their use within the factory for the intended purpose have not been disputed either in the adjudication order or in the impugned order. However, the modvat credit has been denied on the sole ground that the bill issued from the kachcha pit to the chemical unit is not a proper/ valid document prescribed under Rule 52A of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 57G for taking the modvat credit - Notification dated 09.02.1999 issued by the Central Government has not been considered in proper prospective by the authorities below while denying the modvat benefit to the appellant. According to the said Notification, the modvat benefit shall not be denied, if the duty paid character of the input and its receipt and utilization in the factory for the intended purpose is not in dispute. In the circumstance of the present case, since the original authority has not carried out proper exercise, I am of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the jurisdictional Assistant/Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise, who shall verify the documents as provided under the said Notification and if maintenance of such documents are in conformity with the requirement of the said Notification, the Modvat benefit should be allowed to the appellant. - quantum of shortage/loss is negligible in comparison with the total material handled by the appellant. Thus, negligible difference due to various factors should be ignored and full credit should be allowed to the appellant - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1392 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Duty demand - Manufacture - Whether the activity of the appellant installation of signaling system at site is manufacture of excisable goods and would be attract excise duty - Held that:- activity of the appellant no excisable goods come into existence. Moreover, it is also not disputed that similar show cause notices issued by jurisdictional Additional Commissioner, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Mysore have been dropped by the concerned Additional Commissioners. We are also convinced with the contention that the elements required for invocation of extended period under proviso to section 11A(1) are absent in this case. Prima facie, the show case notice dated 31.10.2012 for demand of duty issued for the period October, 2007 to December, 2009 is therefore time barred. - stay granted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1391 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Duty demand u/r Rule 6 (3) - Department has alleged that common Cenvat credit availed input services have been used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final product (Carbon Black) and exempted final product (steam and electricity) and therefore in respect of sale of steam and electricity an amount equal to 5%/10% of the sale value would be recoverable under Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant's contention, however, is that the services being used are three type. The first type of services are those which are directly used in or in relation to manufacture of Carbon Black and in respect of such services the provisions of Rule 6 (2) readwith Rule 6 (3) would not apply.
Held that:- The appellant's plea, however, is that they have reversed the total credit on all the common input services. If this is so, there would be no case for invoking Rule 6 (3) against them. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which is the Jurisdictional High Court, in the case of Hello Minerals Water Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has held that if the Cenvat credit initially taken is reversed subsequently it would amount to not taking Cenvat credit and same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of JCT Ltd. vs. CCE, Jallandhar [2015 (2) TMI 600 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Therefore if the appellant have fully reversed the credit in respect of common services or in other words not taken any Cenvat credit in respect of the common services there would be no justification for invoking Rule 6 (2) readwith Rule 6 (3) and the duty demand would not be sustainable at all.
Without going into the question as to whether the steam and electricity are excisable goods or non-excisable goods, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for denovo adjudication. In denovo proceedings, the Commissioner should examine the appellant's plea that the input services are of three types as described above. In respect of the services which are exclusively used for manufacture of Carbon Black and the services covered by Rule 6 (5) in respect of which Cenvat credit has been taken upto 31/3/11 the provisions of Rule 6 (2) readwith Rule 6 (3) would not apply. If in respect of the common input services of third category, the appellant have fully reversed the Cenvat credit, the provisions of Rule 6 (2) readwith Rule 6 (3) would not apply and the demand confirmed under Rule 6 (3) would not be sustainable - Matter remanded back.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1355 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- The evidence that was furnished by appellant from the scrap dealers was not found to be reliable. Preponderance of probability went in favour of Revenue. There was also no permission granted to appellant to make weighment of the scrap outside. Various oral evidences gathered went against the assessee and that remained unrebutted. There was very precise case of Revenue that the very materials discovered from the premises of the assessee particularly computer record proved the higher generation of scrap and clearance thereof as compared to the lower clearances made through invoices and such clearance of higher quantity of scrap corroborated by the evidence gathered from different parties. Record does not reveal that the appellant had defended the charge of clandestine clearance of higher quantity of scrap before the authorities below. Even no evidence was adduced before the Tribunal to defend. The daily register reveals the respective entries of the scrap clearance while the questionable Modus operandi of the appellant proved clearances of higher quantity of the scrap to the dealers. - Demand of duty confirmed, however penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1354 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of Slice Mango and Slice Orange - Classification under CH 2202.40 or 2202.99 - exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE - Held that:- During the period June 2002 to December 2002 appellant cleared the products "Slice Mango" and "Slice Orange" by classifying the same under 2202.90 claiming exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002. The entry of Tariff at CH. 2202.90 reads as "fruit pulp or fruit juice based drinks" while the Heading under Chapter 2202.99 (the classification as claimed by the Revenue) is a residual entry which shows the description as "Other". It is undisputed that the appellant's products are fruit juice based drinks and it is also seen from the records that the Revenue authorities did not draw any samples as to ascertain the ingredients of the said products.
We find that the learned Counsel was correct in relying upon the judgement of this Bench in the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (3) TMI 67 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) - Bench was seized with the issue of classification of the product which is juice based drinks. The entry which has been considered by the Tribunal was the same entry having the same description as is being disputed in the case in hand. Since the judgement of the Tribunal was contested in civil appeal by the Revenue before the Apex Court and the same was dismissed, we find that the issue is no more res integra and the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1353 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - clearance of goods to own sister concern - inclusion of selling and distribution of expenses and expenses incurred by the corporate office at Nashik during the period October 1997 to June 2000 - Held that:- Issue is no more res integra inasmuch as in the recipient’s own case for the earlier period, this Bench on an appeal filed by Revenue on identical issue, held that the provisions of CAS-4 will apply not only prospectively but also for the period prior to issue of Board’s Circular dated 13.02.2003 - impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1352 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of cum duty benefit - Penalty u/s 11AC - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- There is no need to go into the facts of the case. Hence, the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalties imposed under Section 11AC against both the Assessees are upheld. The Appellant is entitled for the option to pay penalty 25% of the duty as per the provisions of the Act. - Appellants are directly involved in the clandestine removal of the goods and therefore, penalties imposed under the Rule 26 of the Rules would be warranted. The words ‘in any manner’ in Rule 26 of the Rules has wide amplitude and covered. The Appellants herein were directly involved in clandestine removal of goods. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhanlaxmi Garments (2008 (4) TMI 296 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) is in the context of the removal of the goods under CT-3 certificate and the said case law would not be applicable in the present case. We agree with submission of the learned Advocate that the appeal filed by Shri Matadin N. Sharma is to be abated as the Appellant died. Revenue filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for extending cum duty benefit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Delhi Vs Maruti Udyog Ltd - [2002 (2) TMI 101 - Supreme Court], held that the cum-duty benefit would be extended. - demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on M/s Sarla Polyester Ltd and M/s Satidham Industries Ltd are upheld. The Assessees are given option to pay penalty 25% of the duty alongwith entire amount of duty and interest within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. The penalties imposed on Shri Matadin N. Sharma are abated - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1351 - CESTAT MUMBAI
SSI Exemption - Use of other's brand name - onus to prove that brand name not belong to any other person - Eligibility to avail benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1.3.2002 - Held that:- There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondents had produced metal label which is affixed on each and every machines and it is recorded by the first appellate authority that the name plate contains details, such as name of the manufacturer in full, name of the product, model, sr. no. address, telephone no., fax no. and e.mail no. The first appellate authority has recorded the findings to the fact that there were no words or letters which would indicate that "SAMS"is a brand name affixed on such machines. The said particular name plates were produced before us and on perusal of the same, we find that the said label does not indicate that the machines are cleared with a brand name ‘SAMS'. In fact the said label indicated exactly the manufacturer's name and details which is Sams Techno Mech and Sams Tool machine as the case may be.
If department wanted to deny the exemption notification on the ground that the brand name or their name is of another person, they must prove the case and the respondent cannot be asked to prove that trade name/brand name does not belong to any other person. We find that said metal label which was produced before us, creates an impression that the said machine is manufactured by SAMS Machine Tools or SAMS Techno Mech as the case may be - impugned orders are correct and do not require any interference - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1350 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Export of goods without payment of duty - procedure not followed - demand was raised for non-furnishing of export documents - Eligibility of the benefit of exemption Notification No 125/84-CE dtd 25.5.1994 - Held that:- Appellants cleared the goods under the cover of ARE-1s without payment of duty under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The appellant failed to furnish the proof of export. The goods were cleared in 2003. The appellant had not furnished any corroborative evidence to establish the export of the goods till date. Hence, the demand of duty is justified. - demand was raised for non-furnishing of export documents. The goods were cleared for export without payment of duty under 19 of the said Rules.
As per the provisions of law, if the appellant fails to furnish the export documents they are liable to pay duty.
There is no ingredient available on record to invoke Section 11AC in this case. So, the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted. At this stage, the Learned Authorised Representative submits that the penalty was imposed under Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rule 2002. The appellant cleared the goods under the Bond without payment of duty and therefore, the appellants has to be pay the duty for failure to furnish the export documents. It is not a fit case for imposition of penalty under Rule 25(1). Sub Rule (2) of Rule 25 provides that notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act, if any manufacturer removes excisable goods in contravention of the Rule are liable to pay penalty under the said Rules. In this case, the appellant cleared the goods for export and there is no allegation of clandestine removal of the goods as stated above. Hence, the imposition of penalty is not justified. - demand of duty alongwith interest is upheld. Penalties imposed on the appellant firm and the appellant No 2 are set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1349 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Credit availed on MS wire rods and various chemicals - Held that:- After the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Technoweld Industries - [2003 (3) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the mere drawl of wire from wire rods does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly, CENVAT Credit availed during the period wherein the activity undertaken by the appellant will not get covered as the activity get manufactured, CENVAT Credit was correctly sought to be reversed. - Revenue is incorrect inasmuch as during the relevant period the issue was adjudicated before the various forums. Legislature has passed the Taxation Laws (amendment) Rules, 2005 wherein retrospective amendment was introduced to settle this kind of situation. - Board has specifically stated that the amendment has regularized the credit taken at the input stage (wire rods) and the credit taken by the downstream user who draws the wire. In our view as per the Board’s Circular, the demands raised on the appellant herein is incorrect and the impugned order needs to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1348 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Manufacture - repacked of edible oil from tanker to small containers - manufacture of edible oil which are branded as they repacked in the different quantity pack of edible oil from tanker to small containers - Held that:- the activity of packing refined edible oil received in tankers into small containers cannot be treated as manufacturing activity in terms of Note 4 of Chapter 15 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
The first appellate authority, in our considered view, correctly followed the law as has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Amonia Supply Company- [2001 (5) TMI 81 - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI] to hold in favour of the respondent. - Respondent was receiving the edible oil in tankers. It is not bulk pack as the finding, which has not been controverted by the Revenue. - impugned order before us is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1347 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of interest - whether short payment of duty should be adjusted towards the duty where the appellant had paid excess duty - whether the Tribunal was right in confirming the demand of interest under rule 7(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 without harmoniously reading the provisions of rule 7(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that:- On perusal of the records and the judgment in the appellant’s own case [2015 (12) TMI 730 - CESTAT MUMBAI] as decided on 3.11.2014, we find that the issue is same and squarely covered in the appellant’s favour. The reliance placed by the Tribunal in the case of Toyoto Kirloskar Auto Parts (2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) is correct - impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1346 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Excess tax paid - duty was paid on higher price - unjust enrichment -Held that:- Agreement entered by the appellant with Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. indicates that the appellant is required to discharge duty liability on the products on the agreed rates including all taxes and duties would mean that the assessable value needs to be worked back by the appellant for discharging the duty liability. Appellant has discharged the duty liability on the rates which are indicated on agreement. The adjudicating authority has relied upon clause no. 3.17 and clause no. 4.3 of the said agreement the appellant has correctly discharged the Central Excise duty; I find that the reasoning adopted by the both the lower authorities is incorrect as clause no. 4.3 requires the appellant herein to discharge the Central Excise duty correctly and clear the goods after payment of duty while clause no. 3.17 is very particular as to the rates which are to be considered for discharge of duty liability by the appellant. - appellant has been showing the amount for which refund is claimed, in the balance sheet under head loan and in advances. This also indicates that appellant has not expensed out the amounts which have been paid by them as excess Central Excise duty in this appeal. - impugned order are held as unsustainable and liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1314 - SC ORDER
Milk Cans - ‘Domestic Milk Cans’ - Classification of - Notification No. 5/99-C.E. - Supreme after going throug the order of Tribunal classifying the product in question under Chapter Heading 7323.90 and do not find any infirmity therein. The appeal was otherwise also of low tax effect - The appeal was filed by Revenue against the decision of tribunal [2006 (11) TMI 381 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]; wherein Tribunal classified the product under Chapter Heading 7323.90.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1313 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Validity of Tribunal's order - Clandestine removal of goods - Whether the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeal of the Department without discussing the arguments put forth and the relevant provisions of law regarding maintenance of records - Held that:- Tribunal had only recorded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a detailed order by taking into consideration various precedent decisions of the Tribunal as also the provisions of Section 36B of the Act and also found that there was no evidence of clandestine removal. The charges of clandestine activities and removal of goods thereof are required to be adjudicated on the basis of appreciating factual matrix by giving sufficient and cogent reasons. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal more particularly para 8 thereof shows that no legally justified reasons have been recorded for rejecting the appeals of the revenue. The Tribunal being final fact finding authority was required to deal with all aspects of facts and law before recording its conclusions based thereon. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1312 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Duty demand - Shortage of goods - Valuation - Inclusion of royalty amount - Held that:- Appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by 'Doctrine of Merger'. Vide appellate order by the Commissioner (Appeals), it was held that royalty paid is deductible from the assessable value and the same will not form part of the assessable value if there is evidence of payment to the principal. Against this order, the Revenue did not prefer appeal. According to the direction in the remand order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), the adjudicating authority examined the matter and found that royalty have been duly paid and accordingly allowed deductions in conformity with direction in the appellate order. Thus, the issue attained finality. Subsequent appeal by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before this Tribunal is hit by doctrine of merger. - Decided against Revenue.
........
|
