|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 4716 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1590 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - whether the items M.S. Bar, TMT Bar, Channels, H.R. Coil and Angles, Cement etc. used by the appellant for the manufacture of the plant and machinery in their factory would be eligible for the Cenvat Credit?
Held that:- It is not disputed that the items were used in the manufacture of capital goods - the appellant furnished the documents to substantiate the use of these items in question for the manufacture of Capital goods - Apparently, the appellant declared the quantity of the use of the items in their Cenvat Account which was not disputed by the lower authorities. In such a situation, there is no reason to deny the Cenvat Credit on these items.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1588 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- The appellant has confused the entire order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal vide final order dated 19/09/2014 specifically stated that the demands within five years of issuance of show cause notice is liable to be confirmed and are confirmed - There is no mention in the Tribunal’s order as to consequential relief would follow. In the absence of any such direction, the refund claim filed by the appellant seems to be erroneous - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1566 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Monetary limit involved in the appeal - As per the Board’s Circular F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17/8/2011 as amended by Circular F. No. 390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015 on Government’s litigation, the Revenue is not suppose to file appeal before this Tribunal, if the amount of duty or penalty or interest involved is not exceeding ₹ 10 lacs. However, case involving the issue of classification and refund of legal and recurring nature was excluded from the litigation policy.
The present case does not involve any of the aforesaid issues therefore the appeal is dismissed as per the above referred Government’s litigation policy, without going into the merit of this case.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1533 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - includibility - whether the freight insurance collected by the appellant separately over and above the invoice value by raising the commercial invoice is includible in the assessable value of the excisable goods? - Held that: - the purpose of showing freight separately in the invoice is only to show the actual amount of freight. However freight per say is not includible in the assessable value - Merely because the transportation charges are not mentioned in the excise invoice, the same cannot be charged to excise duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1494 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Penalty - Valuation - Held that: - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore Versus Avtec Limited [2017 (12) TMI 1424 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the present case also, where it was held that if multiple questions are involved in the matter, then the department has to raise all these issues before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - present appeal also dismissed following the above case.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1492 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - panels, part of boiler - Circular No.956/09/2012 dt. 18/05/2012 - Held that: - 3 no. VFD panels are part of the boiler which is used in connection with the manufacture of final product and therefore in view of the Circular No.956/09/2012 dt. 18/05/2012, the denial of credit is not sustainable in law - credit allowed.
Interest - penalty - credit taken earlier, reversed - appellant have only availed the CENVAT credit and not utilised the same and subsequently reversed - the appellants are a state government undertaking and allegation of fraud and suppression cannot be alleged against government undertaking - interest and penalty set aside - relying in the case of Commissioner Vs. Bill Forge (P) Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 969 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that if the CENVAT credit is availed but not utilised and is reversed then the assessee is not liable to pay interest.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1491 - CESTAT BANGALORE
100% EOU - CENVAT credit - input services - medical insurance - penalty - Held that: - the period is after 1.4.2011 and this is specifically excluded by the definition of input service and therefore, I deny CENVAT credit on this medical insurance given to the employees - Since there was lot of litigation during that time and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant to evade the duty, therefore, I am of the view that penalty is not imposable on the wrongly availed CENVAT credit which is laible to be reversed.
With regard to the input to the extent of ₹ 9,635/-, I allow the CENVAT credit as the same fall in the definition of input.
CENVAT credit - input services - maintenance or repair of the photocopier - rent-a-cab service - information technology software service - insurance of the assets of the company - Held that: - CENVAT credit on all the services allowed.
Appeal allowed in pat.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1490 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - input services - canteen construction - sales commission - time limitation - Held that: - the entire demand is barred by time as there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant to avail an irregular credit - Though the appellant has tried to justify the availment of credit on merit also, but once it is found that the entire demand is barred by time, then in that case, it is not required to go into the merit of the eligibility of the credit - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1489 - CESTAT BANGALORE
100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - various input services - Held that: - various judgments of the Tribunal have categorically held that the definition of input service as contained in Rule 2(I) has to be given wider interpretation so as to include all services which are received in or in relation to the business of the assessee - reliance placed in appellant own case [2017 (1) TMI 1506 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - refund allowed.
Refund of ₹ 2,811/-, which was denied on account of the fact that the same pertains to Bangalore office - Held that: - the rejection is wrong because the Bangalore office is working in connection with the business of the company and similarly, the appellant is eligible for the refund of ₹ 353/-, which was rejected towards bank charges/commission and postage for which the appellant has also produced the invoice.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1488 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalty u/s 78 - payment of service tax before issuance of SCN - Held that: - Apart from the fact that the appellant did not discharge their service tax burden during the relevant period, there is otherwise no evidence to indicate that such non-payment of duty was on account of any malafide - As such in the absence of any suppression, mis-statement with an intent to evade payment of duty, the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act should be extended to the assessee - penalty set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1487 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - denial of credit on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of photo copies of the invoices, which cannot be held to be eligible documents - Held that: - learned advocate submits that though the documents could not be produced before Audit Officer but during the adjudication, they contended that such original invoices are available with them and they should be given an opportunity to produce the same. The said plea of the appellant does not stand considered by the authorities below - matter remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for examination of the documents to be produced by the appellant, for which they would be given an opportunity - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1486 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Refund claim - security deposit, for maintaining the godown, which was encashed by the Revenue and credited to the Government Account - Held that: - there is no dispute about the fact that at the time of further extension of the permission to maintain an outside godown, a fresh security was given by the assessee and as such the earlier security encashed by the Revenue was to be refunded to them - It is also seen that the credit entry was made by the appellant in their PLA under intimation to the Revenue. Such intimation can be deemed to be a claim for refund and if the Revenue was not happy with the same, they could have initiated the proceedings at that point of time itself - denial of refund not justified - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1485 - CESTAT BANGALORE
SSI exemption - use of brand name or others - Held that: - the same Commissioner in respect of the another unit using the same name has taken a view that there is a difference in the nature of logo and the word ‘Lakshmi’ which was used by the assessee and held by order dt. 24/04/2008 that the assessee is entitled for SSI exemption as they are not used brand name or trade name of another - The learned Commissioner has also relied upon the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. and other decisions which have now been relied upon by the Revenue to come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for SSI benefit as they have not used the same brand name belonging to another company - SSI exemption allowed - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1484 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - includibility - free supply of the design - Held that: - the value of the design will have to be added to the value of the goods as per Rule 6 Explanation-I of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - In the instant case, the design is about 22 years old where copyright is not applicable and it was available in the public domain. So, “nil” value can be added - appeal allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1437 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - relevant documnets for clearing the goods - inputs in question were duly received at Malanpur Unit and used in the manufacture of the Plastic Laminates and Paper Laminates which were removed by the Appellant from Malanpur Unit on payment of appropriate Central Excise Duty under paper invoices to the buyers - Held that: - in absence of any provision akin to erstwhile Rule 57GG wherefrom provision of gate passes were omitted by N/N. 15/1994 dated 30/03/1994 and invoices were brought in their place as valid documents under which goods could be cleared from the factory by the manufacturer or could further be passed on by the dealer to the third party; and that N/N. 15/1994 the Government having not issued the instructions replacing gate passes with the invoice as valid documents allowing endorsement of the invoices from availing Cenvat Credit and the fact that the unit at Haridwar is not operating under the Cenvat Scheme, their final product being exempted, we perceive that no substantial question arises for consideration - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1436 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Penalty - Valuation - Held that: - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Indore Versus Avtec Limited [2017 (12) TMI 1424 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] shall apply mutatis-mutandis in the present case also, where it was held that if multiple questions are involved in the matter, then the department has to raise all these issues before the Supreme Court by filing an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - present appeal also dismissed following the above case.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1435 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - statement of some of the supplier of fabric were recorded who admitted that they are receiving processed fabric without payment of excise duty and some of the supplier denied the receipt of goods without payment of duty - Held that: - Certain documents were resumed but there is no independent witnesses to say that these documents have been recovered from the premises of the appellant. Therefore, in the absence of panchnama, the documents recovered from the possession of the appellant cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence as per the supplementary instructions.
Further, the revenue has relied upon the various statements of suppliers and the appellant. Although, some of the statements have been retracted but apart from that, the statements were not examined in chief during the course of adjudication in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, same cannot be relied upon.
Demand not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1434 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - Return of inputs for rectification - applicability of Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 - Held that: - the goods were returned to the supplier for rectification but the appellants have not produced any proof that the repaired goods were received back - further, the appellants have not followed the procedure as prescribed in Rule 16 of the CCR, 2004.
Demand of differential duty upheld - penalty u/r 25 is set aside as the appellant is a state government undertaking and there is no intention to evade duty on the part of the appellant.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1433 - CESTAT BANGALORE
N/N. 6/2006-CE - international competitive bidding - case of appellant is that the goods were meant only for supply against international competitive bidding and hence, asserted that thy will be eligible for the benefit of N/N. 6/2006 - Held that: - the Project Authority Certificate available on record, indicates that the goods under dispute are meant to be supplied by the appellant to the power plant being executed by Jindal Power Ltd. for the mega power plant at Raigarh. This satisfies the main condition of the N/N. 6/2006 (Sl. No.91) - in similar circumstances, the benefit of alternate N/N. 21/2002 Cus. has been held to be allowable in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kent Introl Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 633 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that So long as the goods are exempt, the condition to be satisfied by the domestic suppliers is that they should be supplied under International Competitive Bidding which the appellant has fulfilled in these appeals and is eligible for exemption - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1432 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Finalisation of provisional assessment - adjustment of excess paid duty with short paid duty - Held that: - the adjustment of excess payment of duty against short payment thereof during the provisional assessment period has been ordered before determining the ultimate demand or refund, in the light of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka decision in the case of Toyota Kirloskar Auto Parts Ltd. [2011 (10) TMI 201 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - the impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority to pass de novo order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
........
|
