|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Appellate Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 63 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2023 (3) TMI 1365
CENVAT Credit - duty paid on the inputs namely craft paper and paper boards purchased from the principal manufacturers - allegation of the department is that the principal manufacturers / suppliers ought to have availed full exemption as per Exemption Notification No.4/2006-CE and should not have cleared the goods under Sl.No.91 paying concessional duty @ 4% - HELD THAT:- The very same issue was decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/S. AKSHERA PAPERS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM (VICE-VERSA) [2018 (9) TMI 1652 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein the Tribunal observed that The issue decided in the case of M/S. SRIPATHI PAPER & BOARDS VERSUS CCE & ST, TIRUNELVELI [2018 (9) TMI 891 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that the assesse has to necessarily pay an amount equivalent to the credit availed on inputs, inputs in ....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1210
Constitutional Validity of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules - discharge of duty without utilizing Cenvat Credit - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/S. GOYAL MG GASES PVT. LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2017 (8) TMI 1515 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], wherein it is categorically held that when Rule 8 (3A) is declared ultra vires by the different High Courts then the Revenue cannot take a different stand contrary to the said judgements. The Hon’ble Court further declared Rule 8(3A) as invalid which is not stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has declared the words “without ut....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1209
Irregular availment of CENVAT Credit - input - steel items such as TMT bars, Chequered Plate, M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates, Joists, Beams, HR Plate, Sheet and Coils, G.C. Sheet etc. - period from November 2006 to March 2008 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra since the period of dispute is from November 2006 to March 2008 and the amendment to the definition of ‘input’ was made on 07.07.2009 and which was made to be not retrospective. It is the case of the Appellant that the disputed items of iron and steel, cement, TMT Bar, MS Flat, Plate, MS Channel, MS Angle, MS Joist, MS Beam, HR Plate Bar Rods, HR Plate Coil, Mill Plate, GC Sheet, Flange Beam, GP Sheet, GP Coil, HR Sheet, HR Coil etc. were used in the factory in the manufacture of final capital goods and have been used for Kiln Support, Base, Ground Hoppers, In....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1208
Refund of Excise Duty paid - Revenue issued SCN seeking to know as to why the refund claim should not be rejected since they are required to pay the Excise Duty on used and scrapped refractories and the payment done by them is correct - applicability of Principles of unjust enrichment. HELD THAT:- From the OIA passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is seen that he has not even addressed this issue raised by the Department in their ‘Grounds of Appeal’. There are no findings as to why or why not the unjust enrichment clause is invokable in the present case. He has gone into the classification and excisibilty of used refractories which was not a Ground before him. Further, this issue was already decided by his predecessor on which no Appeal was filed by the Department. It is seen that the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Mumbai-V, ....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1207
Input Tax Credit - input - Molasses - clearance of Extra Neutral Alcohol (potable and non-excisable) - main allegation of the department is that molasses is used for manufacture of ENA which is non-excisable - HELD THAT:- The appellant did not avail CENVAT Credit of the duty paid on molasses immediately on receiving the molasses in the factory. Though they manufactured non-excisable ENA and also dutiable products viz, acetaldehyde and acetic acid, they have availed credit only on that part of molasses which go into manufacture of dutiable product. Department has no allegation that they have availed credit on the entire quantity of molasses. The Credit that is eligible in respect of dutiable products will be known only when the appellant knows what quantity of alcohol denatured and how much molasses is used in such excisable product captiv....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1124
EOU - Clandestine Removal - evasion of huge excise duty on the clearance of goods clandestinely from the EOUs - fraudulent advance license could not have been issued - malafide intent or not - penalty under Rule 26 of CER - HELD THAT:- The appellant have admittedly issued false performance certificate to fraudulent parties who, on the basis of the said certificates obtained the advance license and such advance licenses were used for evasion of huge excise duty on the clearance of goods clandestinely from the EOUs. Without the performance certificate, the fraudulent advance license could not have been issued and huge revenue loss could not have occurred to the government exchequer. Therefore, for the entire offence the appellant’s role is key role. The appellant has also not verified any credentials of their so-called clients. It is ....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1123
Levy of personal penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - wrong availment of CENVAT Credit by the company - appellant submits that appellant is a technocrat and employed as Director operations and looking after production activities of the Company - SCN barred by time limitation or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant is an employee Director in the Company M/s. Diamond Power Transformers Limited who was alleged to be indulged in fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. Penalty in the present case was imposed under Section 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on the appellant on the ground that he was overall in-charge and involved in the fraudulent availment of Cenvat credit. From the plain reading of Rule 15(1), it is found that a person shall be liable to penalty who takes or utilize Cenvat credit in respect of input or capital go....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1122
Refund of service tax paid on input services - rejection on the ground of time limitation - whether the claim for refund of service tax paid on input services has been filed within the time limit in terms of para 3 (III) (e) of the Notification No 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 and if the same is hit by latches, is the appellant entitle to condonation of delay? HELD THAT:- The Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 is a special statute basically enacted for the establishment of SEZ providing special benefits by way of exemptions with a view to promote the Exports. Section 26 of the SEZ Act read with Rule 31 of SEZ Rules, 2006 provides wholesale exemption from payment of duties under the Central Excise Act, Customs Act and from Service Tax under the Finance Act, 1994 on taxable services provided to SEZ units / developers for carrying on authorised o....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1121
Benefit of Exemption - condition of manufacture without the use of electricity power - Eligibility for benefit under N/N. 6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002 as amended - dipped match splints procured by the respondents were actually manufactured using electricity - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The department has come on appeal aggrieved by the very same order which set aside the demand on the ground that the Show Cause Notice is time-barred. The learned AR has been at pains to argue that the respondents knew that they are purchasing dipped match splints which have been manufactured using electricity and in such circumstances they ought to have obtained registration and paid excise duty. That therefore the respondents have suppressed facts - there are no substance in the argument put forward by the learned AR or in the g....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1120
Valuation - inclusion of subsidy - Third Member Decision - Difference of opinion - capital/wage subsidy in question reduces the selling price of goods or not - amount of subsidy under dispute is not an independent amount received by the appellant - facts in this appeal are similar to the facts in the case of Super Synotex India Ltd. [2014 (3) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] or not - appellant have received VAT subsidy (directly affecting the selling price of the goods) - provisions of Section 9 of Rajasthan VAT Act has not been considered in the case of Shree Cement Ltd. [2018 (1) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] leading to erroneous judgment in the said case. HELD THAT:- Section 4 of the Excise Act, which deals with valuation of excisable goods for the purposes of charging of duty of excise, provides that where the duty of excise is chargeable on any....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1070
SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - in both the firms, the partners are same with the same sharing of 25% each - applicability of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - whether the value of M/s. Himalaya Engineers and Manufacturers can be clubbed with the value of the present appellant? - HELD THAT:- Even though there is a different name of the firm but both the firms are owned by same partners therefore, there is a common ownership by same partners. From the para 2 of Notification, it is clear that for the purpose of aggregating value of clearance under notification no. 8/2003-CE, the value of clearance of manufacturer must be taken for the clearance of one or more factories and as per Para 7, the aggregate value of clearance of excisable goods for home consumption by manufacturer from one or more factories should not be exceeded Rs. 300....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1068
Levy of penalty u/r 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - availment of CENVAT Credit fraudulently - receipt of bills without receipt of finished goods - HELD THAT:- here is no dispute about the fraudulent availment of Cenvat Credit by M/s. Tarun Polymers, Daman, who has wrongly availed the Cenvat Credit of huge amount of 29170642/-. In order to avail this fraudulent Cenvat credit by M/s. Tarun Polymers, Daman, all buyers of the goods purchasing the goods without cover of invoice have clearly facilitated M/s. Tarun Polymers, Daman for wrong availment of CENVAT Credit. In case of M/s. Rajguru Enterprises Pvt Ltd it is clear that though they have received the bills but not received the goods covered therein. Therefore, in the above facts it is a clear case of abatement in evasion of duty on the part of the appellants. Thus, it is clear that ....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1067
Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation - case involving interpretation of law or not - department was well aware of the facts of the case since SCN was issued for the previous period on the same issue - Five audits were conducted at the factory every year since 1.1.2008 - no intent to evade - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the merits of the case and the calculation of duty. Therefore, insofar as the directions of this Tribunal in the Final Order dated 29.7.2019 [2019 (7) TMI 1791 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] are concerned, they have been fully complied with. The only question which remains is the invocation of extended period of limitation which was also required to be examined by the Commissioner. The officer is mandated under the Rules to do what the audit may do much later. If the officer, who is an expert in taxation scrutinise....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1007
Levy of penalty on partnership firm as well as on partner - Clandestine clearance - stocks verified at the premises of the Appellant did not tally with their DSA records and excess stock was found in the factory premises - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has been able to demonstrate that the seized goods which were provisionally released were cleared on payment of proper Excise Duty as it is evident from the documents produced like DSA, ER- 1 Returns, etc. Therefore, once the duty of Rs.2,09,704/- has already been paid in the normal course, the Department cannot be once again recover this amount from the Appellant. The confirmation of Rs.2,09,704/- as Excise Duty to be paid as held by the Adjudicating Authority is infructuous and is set aside. From the order portion of the OIO, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has not given the option....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 1006
Recovery of Central Excise duty under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with interest under Section 11AA - levy of penalty under Section 11AC - non-payment of an amount equal to 6% under Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004 of the value of exempted goods/ non-excisable goods - SCN is vague and not clear - HELD THAT:- Neither the original authority nor the Commissioner (Appeals) has understood what the demand in the show cause notice was for. In view of the above, it is found that these are fit cases to be remanded to the Original Authority to decide the matter afresh strictly within the scope of show cause notice. Needless to say, even if demand can be made beyond the show cause notice, the order-in-original cannot go beyond the show cause notice. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority.
-
2023 (3) TMI 950
Vires of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Default in payment of amount of central excise duty along with interest - amount stands deposited with a delay of few weeks - Department is of the view that as per the provisions of Rule 8(3A) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellant should have paid the entire delayed payment of Rs. 1,41,36,316/- in cash rather than same being paid by utilizing Cenvat credits. HELD THAT:- The matter has been decided by this tribunal in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DELHI-I VERSUS SPACE TELELINK LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1599 - DELHI HIGH COURT], M/S. SUPERMAX PERSONAL CARE PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE & ST, LTU, MUMBAI [2022 (7) TMI 920 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and ANDHRA CYLINDERS PVT LTD, NALIN KHARA, MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TA....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 949
Seeking recovery of the amount refunded - recovery sought on the ground that the exemption in terms of the said Notification is not available to excisable commodity which is not manufactured in such units - requirement to pay duty on waste and scrap in view of the Notification No.89/95-CE dated 18.05.95 - benefit of Notification No.33/99-CE (as amended) - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in this case that the Appellant has manufactured cement as well as capital goods in the factory. During the course of manufacture of capital goods waste and scrap was also generated. Whether duty is payable on the waste and scrap is not a question here. However, it is found that the Appellant has chosen to pay duty on the waste and scrap by utilizing the CENVAT Credit. The payment of duty on the scrap has not been questioned by the Department. The Departme....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 948
Denial of benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 at Sl. No. 72 - classification of matches - matches classifiable under Chapter 3605.00.10 or 3605.00.90? - appellants are independent manufactures - appellant purchased ‘machine dipped match splints’ and undertook box filling and packaging without the aid of power and then cleared at nil rate of duty - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is available to the appellant has been decided by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/S SRI GANAPATHY PACKAGING VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE [2020 (2) TMI 1114 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. The said order was followed in the case of M/S. PUSHPA MATCH WORKS, M/S. AMSARANI MATCH WORKS, M/S. SELVI PACKAGING, M/S. ESTHAR MATCH WORKS, M/S. JOTHI MATC....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 947
CENVAT Credit - reverse charge mechanism - case of the department is that since the appellant have paid the service tax on reverse charge mechanism on 13.07.2017, the same was not available as cenvat credit as on 30.06.2017 - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the fact that the appellant have discharged the service tax under reverse charge mechanism in respect of the services received in the month of June, 2017 and payment of service tax was made in 13.07.2017. The appellant have filed the ST-3 return for the period ending on 30.06.2017 on 10.07.2017. The appellant have reflected the cenvat credit of service tax paid on 13.07.2017 of the said return on 30.06.2017. Since the service tax was paid on 13.07.2017 by no stretch of imagination the same could have been mentioned in the ST- 3 return filed on 10.07.2017. Moreover,....... + More
-
2023 (3) TMI 946
Disallowance of taken CENVAT Credit on clean energy cess levied on coal - seeking recovery along with interest under section 11AA and imposed penalty under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this appeal is identical to the issue involved in respect of the same appellant in M/S ACC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C.G.S.T. & C.E. JABALPUR [2019 (6) TMI 1192 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. It was held in the final order that the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit on the clean energy cess paid by it and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. There are no reason to take different view in this appeal - the appellant was not entitled to Cenvat credit of the clean energy cess paid - appeal dismissed.
|
