|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 685 Records
-
2020 (11) TMI 192 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Interest on delayed refund claim - claim of interest rejected on the ground that in terms of Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944, interest is only to be granted after expiry of three from the date of order of appellate authority - HELD THAT:- I am in agreement with the claim of the learned Counsel that the amount of ₹ 15 Lakh deposited was not under the provisions of Section 35F and therefore, the provisions of Section 35FF which reads as under, will not apply - It is clear that Section 35FF is only for recoveries made under Section 35F. In these circumstances, I have no doubt in holding that order of Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect and based on wrong premise.
Learned Authorised Representative argued that no application for refund of interest is made under Section 11B on 24.12.2007 - the appreciation of learned Authorised Representative regarding Section 11B is improper and incorrect.
The reference to refund of interest in Section 11B, is to the interest, if any, paid by the assessee along with duty. Section 11B does not apply to the claim of interest on the refund of duty to the appellant. In respect of claim of interest of duty to the appellant, Section 11BB applies - there are no merits in the argument of the learned Authorised Representative that the appellants were required to claim interest along with refund of duty. Section 11BB prescribes that interest is to be granted suo-moto along with refund.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (11) TMI 156 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Amount of tax dues - Substitution of estimated amount payable as mentioned in forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 with the tax dues less tax relief amounts - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - whether the petitioners could be prejudiced or put in a worse off condition firstly by filing appeal before the CESTAT and secondly by filing declarations under the scheme?
HELD THAT:- We may refer to the maxim reformatio in peius. It is a latin phrase meaning a change towards the worse i.e., a change for the worse. As a legal expression it means that a lower court judgment is amended by a higher court into a worse one for those appealing it. In many jurisdictions, this practice is forbidden ensuring that an appellant cannot be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. When the above phrase is prefixed by the words ‘no’ or ‘prohibition’, which would render the maxim as no reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius, it would denote a principle of procedure as per which using a remedy available in law should not aggravate the situation of the person who avails the remedy. In other words, a person should not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. No reformatio in peius or prohibition of reformatio in peius is a part of fair procedure and thus by extension can also be construed as part of natural justice. It is not only a procedural guarantee but is also a principle of equity.
The initial show cause-cum-demand notice dated 17.01.1992 cannot be said to be in existence after the order in original was passed on 29.03.2006 which order has been accepted by the department. Quantification of dues had been done which was accepted by the department - Since the figures i.e., demand amounts in the order in original dated 29.03.2006 have been accepted by the respondents, it is those figures which would be material and not the figures mentioned in the show cause-cum-demand notice. Petitioners cannot be put in a worse off condition or the situation faced by them cannot be aggravated because they had availed the remedy of appeal or had sought relief under the scheme which is a beneficial one.
Having regard to the objective of the scheme, in a case of this nature, a reasonable and pragmatic approach has to be adopted so that a declarant can avail the benefits of the scheme; a declarant who seeks benefit under the scheme cannot be put in a worse off condition than he was before making declaration under the scheme. That would defeat the very purpose of the scheme.
This Court had already clarified that payments made by the petitioners following issuance of forms SVLDRS-2 and SVLDRS-3 would be subject to outcome of the writ petitions and if the petitioners succeed, they would be entitled to the refund of excess payment made without having to institute separate proceedings - the tax dues in respect of each of the three petitioners shall be treated as ₹ 6,15,017.00, ₹ 10,12,375.00 and ₹ 2,66,193.00 respectively, ₹ 18,93,585.00 collectively, and payments made by the petitioners in excess shall be refunded to them within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Petition allowed.
-
2020 (11) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Restoration/return of the Bank Guarantee - HELD THAT:- The applicant had submitted a bank guarantee of State Bank of India bearing No.0999514BG0001982 dated 3/12/2014 which was subsequently amended on 5/10/2017 extending validity period upto 30/11/2022 - In the meanwhile, Central Government introduced the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme 2019. In order to avail the benefits under the aforesaid scheme, petitioner sought leave of the Court to withdraw the writ petition. By order dated 12/12/2019, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 8922 of 2014 as withdrawn.
Writ Petition No. 8922 of 2014 be restored for the limited purpose of passing an order directing the Registry of this Hon’ble Court to return the Bank Guarantee No. 0999514BG0001982 dated 03.12.2014 (as amended by amendment dated 05.10.2017).
-
2020 (11) TMI 11 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Reversal of Cenvat Credit - Exemption under the under SFIS Scheme - appellant has cleared DG sets without payment of excise duty under the Status Holder Incentive Scheme by availing the benefit of Notification No. 33/2012-CE dated 09.07.2012 and under SFIS by availing the benefit of Notification dated 14.06.2006 - Whether the goods cleared under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 under SFIS Scheme are exempted or not? - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that the appellant is manufacturing DG sets and enclosures which are dutiable under Chapter 85 of CETA 1985. The appellant is also clearing goods to the buyers under SFIS Scheme duty free in terms of the Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 - It is an admitted position by both sides that the goods in question manufactured by the appellant are dutiable under Chapter 85 of the CETA, 1985.
The similar issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS KIRLOSKAR CHILLERS PVT. LTD. [2017 (9) TMI 694 - CESTAT MUMBAI], this Tribunal has following the decision in the case of M/S VOLTAMP TRANSFORMERS LTD. VERSUS CCE VADODARA [2011 (9) TMI 648 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] hold that the goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 is not exempted, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) (b) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable.
These facts are found support from the decision relied upon by the Ld. AR as in the case of UOI AND ORS. VERSUS IND-SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. [2011 (2) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court is clarities that ‘the taxing statute must be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed. It is not permissible to import provisions in taxing statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency’. It means that the dutiable goods cannot become exempted goods as per the convenience of the revenue - Moreover, the circular which has been relied by the revenue have no mention of notification in question and the Revenue has presumed that if the notification in question is not part of the Circular No. 973/07/2013-CX dated 04.09.2013 then the provisions of Rule 6 (3) is applicable. The said understanding of the revenue is against the mandate of law as it is based of assumption & presumption. Therefore, it is a clear mis-interpretation of the Revenue by interpreting the CBEC Circular dated 04.09.2013
The goods supplied under Notification No. 34/2006-CE dated 14.06.2006 under SFIS Scheme are dutiable and not exempted goods, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6 (3) of the CCR, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case - as provision of Rule 6 (3) of CCR, 2004 are not applicable to the facts of this case, therefore, the demand is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1361 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of SLP - writ petition has been decided in the meantime - HELD THAT:- Since the Special Leave Petition is rendered infructuous, it is dismissed as such. This would not preclude recourse being taken to the remedies available to any of the parties against the final judgment and order of the High Court.
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as infructuous.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1229 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of revision under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Jurisdiction - power of Joint Secretary (Revision Application), Government of India, who was also in the same rank of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, who had passed the Order-In- Appeal - HELD THAT:- The matter is remitted to the present Revisional Authority under Section 35 EE of the Act for fresh consideration of the matter. It shall be incumbent upon the Revisional Authority, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, deal with each of the contentions raised and pass reasoned orders on merits and in accordance with law, inhibited and uninfluenced by the impugned order which has been set aside and communicate the decision taken to the Petitioner by 31.03.2021 under written acknowledgment.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1133 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT Credit - input services - outward transportation of its finished goods, i.e. biscuits, which were transported up to the customers’ premises - place of removal - period from January, 2005 to September, 2007 - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM VERSUS M/S. VASAVADATTA CEMENTS LTD. [2018 (3) TMI 993 - SUPREME COURT]. By this judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that that the assessee is legally eligible to avail credit on outward transportation availed from place of removal upto a certain point, whether it is a depot or customer’s premises.
In the instant case, the availment of credit on outward transportation from factory gate to customer’s place pertains to period prior to April 2008 i.e. prior to period when the definition of input service was amended - Since the credit eligibility finally stands decided by the Apex Court in favour of assessee, the impugned order is liable to be sustained.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1106 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of CENVAT Credit - rejection on the ground of time limitation - manufacture and export of fire vehicle took place in June to August, 2015 and refund claim was filed on 22nd September, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Clause 3(b) of Notification 27/2012 prescribes that section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 will be applicable to all claims made under Rule 5.
In the instant case, the appellant is a manufacturer and, therefore, there is no ambiguity. The refund claim relates to the period June to August, 2015 and the same was filed on 22nd September, 2017 which clearly beyond the scope of limitation prescribed under section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1063 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Calculation of Interest for delayed payment of Excise Duty - relevant date - period of dispute is September, 2005 to March, 2015 - whether the demand of interest is to be calculated from the date of clearance of goods upto the date of actual payment of duty or from the date of determination of due amount till actual date of payment of duty?
HELD THAT:- Similar issue arose before the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS LUCAS TVS LTD. [2009 (12) TMI 828 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein the facts were that vide adjudication orders dated 9.1.1995 and 10.02.1995, the demand of over ₹ 34 lakhs was determined. These demands were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide an order dated 20.06.1995. The order-in-appeal was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Final Order dated 24.01.1997. The demand was re-confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 26.12.2000. It was the contention of the Revenue that since the demand of ₹ 34 lakhs, earlier confirmed in Jan., /Feb., 1995, although set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) earlier in June, 1995, was restored by the subsequent order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.12.2000. As the determination of the duty had taken effect in Jan./Feb., 1995, therefore, due to delay in payment of duty, the assessee was liable to pay interest from August, 1995. This Tribunal held that final determination can be said to have been made on 26.12.2000 with passing of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) after remand.
In the facts of the present case also, the Commissioner (Appeals) has redetermined the duty liability by his order dated 28.02.2015, as the demand was set aside for the period 14.01.2007 to 09.03.2010 and only re-determined for the period August, 2005 to Jan. 2007 - the appellant /assessee is liable to pay interest for one month i.e. from 1.3.2015 to 31.03.2015, which they have admittedly paid.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1032 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - additional duty of customs paid - rule 3 (1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Customs duty of excise duty - concessional rate of tax under Customs Notification dated March 17, 2012 - extended period of limitation - levy of interest and penalty.
HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that both Hindustan Zinc and Ultratech Cement paid additional duty of Customs under section 3 (1) of the Customs Tariff Act, after availing the benefit of the Customs Notification dated March 17, 2012 and that they also availed CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs so paid under rule 3(1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. This availment of CENVAT credit has been denied to them for the reason that the additional duty of customs paid @ 2% was not the duty of excise as specified in the Excise Tariff Act and so CENVAT credit of the additional duty of customs paid under the Customs Notification dated March 17, 2012 have been wrongly availed.
A bare perusal of rule 3(1)(i) indicates that a provider of output service shall be allowed to take CENVAT credit of the duty of excise specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act specified in the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act, leviable under the Excise Act subject to the two conditions mentioned in proviso (a) & (b). However, rule 3(1)(vii) provides that a provider of output service shall be allowed to take credit of the additional duty leviable under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, equivalent to the duty of excise specified under clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (via) - The Commissioner has mixed up rule 3(1)(i) and rule 3(1)(vii) of rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. It is for this reason that the conditions specified in rule 3(1)(i) have also been imported into rule 3 (1)(vii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules.
In the first instance, Hindustan Zinc had not paid duty of excise specified in the First Schedule of the Excise Tariff Act, nor it had availed the benefit of the Central Excise Notification dated March 1, 2011 or that specified in serial numbers 67 and 128 in respect of which the benefit of an exemption under Central Excise Notification dated March 17, 2012 had been availed. In fact, Hindustan Zinc had paid additional duty of customs by availing the benefit under serial number 122A/123 of the Customs Notification dated March 17, 2012. It is because of this misreading of rule 3(1) of the CENVAT Credit Rules that led the Commissioner to commit an error - The Commissioner, therefore, committed an illegality in denying the benefit of CENVAT credit to Hindustan Zinc.
On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals), in the matter of Ultratech Cement, after considering the provisions of rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and the decision of the Tribunal in M/S HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS GST, BHOPAL RESPONDENT [2018 (3) TMI 1124 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] and the Minutes of the Meeting of the Regional Advisory Committee of Hyderabad Zone held on February 9, 2015, held that Ultratech Cement was justified in taking the CENVAT credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) also found that the judgment of the Gujarat High Court inLONSENKIRI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, VADODARA-I [2018 (9) TMI 1439 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] would not be applicable to the facts of the case.
Thus, there is no error in the order passed the Commissioner (Appeals) in the matter of Ultratech Cement - appeal allowed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1005 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - input services - marine insurance services provided by the insurance companies - place of removal - HELD THAT:- All services received by the manufacturer directly or indirectly in relation to the manufacture of final products upto the place of removal are admissible for availment of Cenvat Credit on the Service Tax paid for such services.
The goods are being cleared by the appellants to their buyers on FOR basis and all liabilities in respect of transportation of goods or even damage to goods were on account of the appellants/manufacturer. It is the appellants who were liable for safe delivery of goods up to their customer‟s door steps. The impugned service of marine insurance was taken to cover the risk of transportation of goods. Thus, present becomes the case were the service of insurance of goods to be supplied to buyers at their door steps under FOR delivery system was taken. These admitted facts are sufficient to hold that the sale in the present case gets complete only at the door steps of buyers. It becomes clear that when the goods are cleared on FOR basis the freight paid on outward transportation would definitely qualify as input service, and thus shall be admissible for Cenvat.
Thus, the marine insurance services were availed by the appellant-manufacturer when the property in goods was still retained with him, the delivery being on FOR basis. Hence, the opinion formed by the adjudicating authority below for the impugned marine services to not to be included under input services are absolutely wrong - the plea that general insurance services fall under the exclusion clause is also not appropriate to the given facts and circumstances for the reason that the general insurance services only with respect to motor vehicles are covered under the exclusion part of the definition of input services. The impugned goods are not being motor vehicles.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 1004 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- The amount involved in the present case is below the monetary limit of ₹ 50.00 Lakhs which has been notified vide Board’s Instruction being F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22 August 2019 - the appeal is dismissed under National Litigation Policy.
-
2020 (10) TMI 958 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Demand of Interest over differential duty or unpaid service tax - Direction to deposit the arrears of interest on the enhanced rate of washed coking coal dispatched to the Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) in terms of long terms agreement between the SAIL and this petitioner Bharat Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) for the period from April 2011 to March, 2012 - Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 - HELD THAT:- By virtue of this judgment in the case of M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [2019 (5) TMI 657 - SUPREME COURT] the issue now stands settled that the assessee is liable to pay interest upon the differential duty and / or the unpaid service tax detected by the Revenue.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (10) TMI 957 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The appeals are dismissed as deemed to have been withdrawn as per section 127(6) of the Finance Act (No.2), 2019.
-
2020 (10) TMI 908 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of accumulated unutilized Cenvat Credit of Krishi Kalyan Cess - HELD THAT:- On the subject issue much water flown and this tribunal’s two larger bench judgments one in the case of M/S. GAURI PLASTICULTURE P. LTD., BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., M/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI IV, THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI I [2019 (6) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and in case of STEEL STRIPS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LUDHIANA [2011 (5) TMI 111 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] are contradictory - There are various high courts judgments such as UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SLOVAK INDIA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. [2006 (7) TMI 9 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] from Karnataka High Court, M/S. WELCURE DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR [2018 (8) TMI 1169 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NASIK VERSUS JAIN VANGUARD POLYBUTLENE LTD. [2010 (6) TMI 171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] from Bombay High Court - Now the larger bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Gauri Plasticulture Pvt. Ltd. though after considering the SLOVAK INDIA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. of Karnataka High Court which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court taken a view that accumulated unutilized Cenvat Credit cannot be refunded.
The Larger Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 007390/2020 registered on 09.06.2020 which is pending at present. In this position of law, no purpose will be served if any order is passed by this tribunal when the matter is seized with the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Matter to the Adjudicating Authority for passing the denovo order after the outcome of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. V/s. CCE in the aforementioned SLP - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (10) TMI 862 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund in terms of N/N. 33/99-CE, dated 08.07.1999 - denial only on the ground that the claim was not filed within a reasonable time - other substantive requirement of expansion in the installed capacity has been complied with - HELD THAT:- The issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of Vernerpur Tea Estate vs. CCE, Shillong [2016 (4) TMI 17 - CESTAT KOLKATA] which was decided against the assessee on the ground of limitation since refund claim was filed after a period of 6 years - the decision of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Vernerpur Tea Estate, being directly on the point, has to be respectfully followed in the instant case inasmuch as the basic criterion of increase in the installed capacity has been duly fulfilled by the appellant and therefore, there is no reason to deny the refund.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 819 - SC ORDER
Imposition of the oil cess and National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD), education cess (EC), secondary and higher secondary education cess (SHE) - condensate which emerges out during the process of processing of the natural gas in the appellant‟s natural gas processing plant - it was held by CESTAT that the oil cess is not leviable on the “condensate” and under OIDA.
HELD THAT:- The Civil Appeal is dismissed on the ground of low tax effect.
-
2020 (10) TMI 818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Levy of Penalty - disallowance of CENVAT Credit - supplementary invoice raised by job worker - suppression of facts or not - revenue neutrality - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the transaction between BALCO and VAL is duly documented and properly recorded in the books of accounts of both the companies. Further, the method of valuation adopted for clearance of calcined alumina from VAL to BALCO was under a business like formula based on the price of aluminium at LME. Further, from the facts on record, we find that there is no incentive for VAL to suppress the clearance value or pay lower tax. Whatever duty was payable as per the invoice, the same was to be paid by BALCO to VAL. Secondly, it has been demonstrated from the appeal paper book, being the extract of cenvat credit, that VAL alone had sufficient credit balance in their cenvat account exceeding ₹ 1 crore, whereas the duty payable was in few lakhs only and thus the cumulative credit balance in cenvat register of VAL was increasing from month to month. Further, it is evident from record that the parties suo motu changed the basis of valuation to the tender price of NALCO for calcined alumina (under International Competitive Bidding).
Revenue Neutrality - HELD THAT:- The situation is wholly revenue neutral as BALCO is clearing their finished product on payment of duty, and whatever duty is charged by VAL is available to BALCO as cenvat credit.
Suppression of facts or not - penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Upon enquiry and investigation by Revenue, disputing the method of valuation of calcined alumina by VAL, on being so advised agreed to the valuation as suggested by Revenue and suo motu deposited the differential duty alongwith interest much prior to issue of show cause notice. VAL also bonafide issued supplementary invoice to BALCO in December, 2009. Thus, we find that the issue is wholly interpretational in nature, and there is no element of fraud, suppression or intention to evade payment of duty. Reliance placed by Revenue on the show cause notice of VAL is erroneous and misconceived. We further find that the allegation by Revenue are bald and unsubstantiated. Only for the reason that VAL instead of contesting the show cause notice went for settlement before the Settlement Commission, no adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant BALCO - The benefit of N/N. 214/86-CE was available to BALCO i.e. they could have received calcined alumina from VAL without payment of duty, as prescribed. Further, the extended period of limitation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances, there being no suppression of facts or attempt to evade duty, etc.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 756 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - inputs procured by themselves and used in the manufacture of job work goods and cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 - credit denied on the ground that goods manufactured on job work basis, wherein the subject inputs were used, have been cleared under Notification No. 214/86-CE, without payment of excise duty - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res-integra as in various judgments including the judgments in the appellant’s own case, BANCO ALUMINIUM LTD VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T., VADODARA-I [2019 (7) TMI 1691 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] this Tribunal has held that inputs used in the manufacture of job work goods, under Notification No. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986, particularly by virtue of specific provision under Rule 3(1), in the appellant’s own case, the Tribunal held that even though the job work goods are exempted under notification 214/86-CE, the credit is allowed.
CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (10) TMI 729 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Condonation of Delay in filing the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal - rectification of mistake - HELD THAT:- There is no delay in filing the miscellaneous application for restoration of appeal inasmuch as upon receipt of the Final Order, the applicant /respondent had filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a rectification application before the Tribunal. Hence, the miscellaneous application is disposed of, holding that there is no delay in filing the said application before the Tribunal.
Rectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - HELD THAT:- The submissions made in the said miscellaneous application was considered by the Tribunal in specifically observing at paragraph 5 therein that during the disputed period 2005-06, the respondent did not refund the disputed duty amount to its buyers. Such findings were recorded by the Tribunal upon examination of the relevant documents including the invoices etc. available in the case file during the course of hearing of appeal. Thus, it cannot be said that there is apparent mistake in the said order passed by the Tribunal, which can be rectified as prayed for by the applicant/respondent - there is no merit in the miscellaneous application filed for rectification of mistake - application dismissed.
........
|
