-
2023 (5) TMI 1188
Grant of interest on delayed payment of refund under Section 11BB of Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant is entitled to interest on the delayed refund in view of the judgement of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI cited [ 2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held that liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made. The appellant has filed the refund claim on 28.10.2010 which was finally sanctioned on 31.08.2020 but no interest was granted - Further, as per Section 11BB of the Act, the interest is payable after ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1187
Wrong availment of input tax credit of amount paid on fully exempted goods as per Sl. No. 90 of Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006, as amended - main contention of the Department is that payment of duty at concessional rate without availing exemption for their first clearances of 3,500 M.T. is violative of the provisions of Explanation to sub-section (1A) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Whether the principal manufacturer is eligible to avail exemption as per Notification No. 04/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 under Sl. No. 91 and clear the goods on concessional payment of duty? - whether it is mandatory to avail nil rate of duty as provided under Sl. No. 90 and consequently, whether the appellant herein is eligible for availment of CENVAT Credit of the duty paid by the principal manufacturer? HELD THAT:-....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1149
Exemption benefit - excisability of waste generated during the preparation of final product namely Rice Bran Oil Product - denial of exemption Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 - HELD THAT:- It is found that for a different period, Appellant s appeal was allowed by this Tribunal in extending benefit of exemption under Notification No. 89/95-CE and holding that the same would apply to the waste namely Gums Recovered Oil etc. The same issue is also settled in the case of M/s. Ricela Health Foods Ltd [ 2018 (2) TMI 1395 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ] by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal - Further the issue has attended finality by rejection of appeal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I VERSUS MARICO LTD. [ 2022 (10) TMI 1174 - SC ORDER] by the Hon ble Supreme Court in confirming the order passed by this Tribun....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1148
Short payment of Central Excise duty - allegation of undervaluation of liquid hair dye - SCN alleged that the appellants incorrectly claimed higher abatement of excise duty of 105% (duty payable for goods classifiable under Tariff Item 14F) instead abatement of excise duty 8% or 10% (duty payable for goods classifiable under Tariff Item 68) which has been actually paid by them - recovery of differential duty alleged to be short levied along with Interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The order determining the classification was challenged by the Appellant before the Hon ble Bombay High Court [ 2002 (9) TMI 128 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ], where the issued was determined in favour of revenue. This order was challenged by the appellant before the Hon ble Supreme Court [ 2008 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT ], and Hon ble Supreme Court ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1129
Distribution of CENVAT Credit - input services attributable to the final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between the manufacturing plants of Parle Biscuits and its contract manufacturing units - rule 7(d) of the CENVAT Rules - HELD THAT:- A Division Bench of the Tribunal in M/S. KRISHNA FOOD PRODUCTS, M/S. MARIAMMA R. IYER, M/S. PARLE BISCUITS PVT LTD. VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CGST C. EX [ 2021 (5) TMI 906 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] expressed reservations about the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in SUNBELL ALLOYS CO OF INDIA LTD MACHSONS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS [ 2014 (2) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and also noticed that a Division Bench of the Tribunal in COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2011 (2) TM....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1128
Refund claim - time limitation - rejection on the ground that the claim for refund of duty paid on vehicle registered as Taxi, was filed after expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty, in terms of condition no. 26 (b) of Notification No. 12/2012 - HELD THAT:- The right to claim refund by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle (appellant) under Notification No.12/2012, arises on the material point or event, when the vehicle sold is registered with the Motor Vehicle Department (State Government) as an ambulance or taxi, and the manufacturer receives such information from the buyer of the vehicle along with proof. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, the limitation for refund for a manufacturer under Notification No.12/2012 under Sl.No.273, is six months from the date of registration of the vehicle as an ambulance or taxi. It i....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1127
Levy of penalty u/r 26(2)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - vague SCN - It is alleged that goods delivered to the person other than the assessee has been admitted by the transporters in their respective statement - HELD THAT:- The impugned orders do not assign any specific act of contravention of the Central Excise Rules to the appellant. Commissioner has recorded that the appellant has submitted before him that they were no way concerned about the invoices or the material. Nothing has been said in the orders whereby it can be said that the appellant was acting beyond the normal business acts in transportation of the goods. There are no merits in imposition of penalties on the appellant. The same are set aside - Appeals are allowed in respect of transporter appellant.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1126
Clandestine Removal - clearance of finished goods without proper accounting in order to evade Central Excise Duty as the stock, as mentioned in the RG-1 register was not tallying with the physical stock - shortages determined by eye estimation - HELD THAT:- This question has been answered in negative by the tribunal in number of case. Decision in the case of DHEBAR STEEL RE-ROLLERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR [ 2002 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI ] referred, where it was held Revenue had not produced any evidence to show that the shortages and excesses were based on actual weighment of the inputs and final products. Therefore, the order of confiscation in respect of the goods found excess in the factory and demand of duty in respect of the goods found short is not sustainable. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1079
CENVAT Credit - Distribution of CENVAT Credit - input services attributable to the final product on a pro-rata basis proportionate to the turnover of each unit between the manufacturing plants of Parle Biscuits and its contract manufacturing units, including the appellant - rule 7(d) of the CENVAT Rules - HELD THT:- A Division Bench of the Tribunal while hearing Excise Appeal No. 52692 of 2019, Excise Appeal No. 52693 of 2019 and Excise Appeal No. 52694 of 2019 expressed reservations about the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in SUNBELL ALLOYS CO OF INDIA LTD MACHSONS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS [ 2014 (2) TMI 297 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and also noticed that a Division Bench of the Tribunal in COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2011 (2) TMI 57 - CESTAT MUMBA....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1078
Default in paying Central Excise duty on monthly basis as per Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - contravention of Rule 8 (3A) of CER - HELD THAT:- The Rule 8(3A) in terms of which revenue has asked for recovery of the amounts paid by the appellant from their cenvat credit account have been quashed by the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in case of INDSUR GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2 [ 2014 (12) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] observing that the condition contained in sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 for payment of duty without utilizing the Cenvat credit till an assessee pays the outstanding amount including interest is declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the portion without utilizing the Cenvat credit of sub-rule (3A) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, shall be rendered invalid. Thus, there are no merits in the appeal filed by the revenue - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1077
Refund claim - nexus of specific inputs with its different rates to the manufacture of export goods cleared under various A.R.E. 1 (not established) - non-maintenance of records in a proper manner facilitating the possible co-relation of specific inputs to specific Outputs, as required under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 - no sufficient corroborative evidence was available on records to link the input - HELD THAT:- Tribunal while remanding the matter to original authority has held that the appellant is entitled to the refund of the accumulated credit which shall be quantified by the authority below, after looking into their records for which purposes we remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority. In the remand proceedings appellant submitted all the documents required for verification and quantification. All th....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1076
CENVAT/MODVAT Credit - waste and scrap of various items cleared - remanding duty on clearance of various types of waste and scrap under Rule 3 (5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra. In the Appellant s own case COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S.T. (LTU) , MUMBAI VERSUS AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. [ 2015 (10) TMI 1781 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] the issue has been settled and it was held that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS WEST COAST INDUSTRIAL GASES LTD. [ 2003 (4) TMI 110 - SUPREME COURT ] read with Board's Circular No. 721/37/2003- CX., dated 6-6-2003. Following the said decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the circular, I dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. In case of PANASONIC CARBON INDIA CO. LTD. ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1075
Use of Brand name of others - Simultaneous availment of SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and CENVAT Credit - branded goods manufactured by the Assessee and cleared as well as goods processed by it as job worker and cleared under brand name of others, against which duty had been paid and CENVAT Credits had been availed. HELD THAT:- The law is not static and it changes with the changing need of time and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in view of operation of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, is the law of land. In the said COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. NEBULAE HEALTH CARE LTD. [ 2015 (11) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT] , while distinguishing other judgments including COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD VERSUS RAMESH FOOD PRODUCTS [ 2004 (11) TMI 103 - SUPRE....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1022
Clandestine Removal - shortage of stock - Demand of differential value of the stock - various differences in the physical stock of finished/semi-finished goods shown in their statement when compared with the adjusted RG-1 opening balance of stock of finished/semi-finished goods for the years 2001-02, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 - validity of SCN - parameters relied upon by the authorities in the show-cause notice and the parameters relied upon by the learned Commissioner are at variance - HELD THAT:- The show-cause notices though demanded duty beyond the normal period fail to invoke proviso to Section 11A but the learned Commissioner in his impugned order invoked proviso to Section 11A and imposed penalty under Section 11AC which is beyond the scope of show-cause notices. In this regard, the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of COMMR. OF CENTR....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1021
Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on account of non-deposit of the pre-deposit amount of 7.5% as required - reversal of CENVAT Credit - wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit on input services - HELD THAT:- The appellant has now deposited the mandatory pre deposit of 10% of the disputed amount. Since the appeal has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) only on the ground that the mandatory pre-deposit of disputed amount was not complied with by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal, the said compliance has been made by the appellant and thus the requisite pre deposit has been deposited, It would, therefore be in the interest of justice that the appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to be considered on merits, more so as the stand taken by the appellant is that the issue on merits is covered by t....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1020
Scope of SCN - Setting a new case which travelled beyond the SCN - Levy of Excise Duty - activity of flock printing done with the aid of power operated machine - process amounting to manufacture or not - HELD THAT:- From the order of the CESTAT remanding the matter to the original authority, it is evident that the matter was remanded with specific direction to determine the correct classification under heading 5907 after consideration of the Chapter Note 5(c) to the Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff. Original authority has clearly observed that the said chapter note was applicable in the case and the goods were not classifiable under chapter 5907. Having done so he should have dropped the demand which was made under heading 5907.12. However without assigning any reason he determines the classification under Chapter 54 suo mott....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 973
CENVAT Credit - input services - denial of credit on the ground that some of the invoices raised by the service provider were showing the address of Appellant s registered office at Kolkata - suppression of facts or not - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly there is no dispute that the services were received by the Appellant in their factory premises as is established from the copies of the sample Invoices provided by the Appellant. The Tribunals have been consistently holding that when the service is received and utilized in the factory and the invoices are raised in the address of the Head office, the Cenvat Credit cannot be denied. In the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS C. EX., VAPI VERSUS DNH SPINNERS [ 2009 (7) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ], the Tribunal has held The Revenue in their grounds has raised....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 972
100% EOU - Clandestine Removal/suppression of production - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It appears that the entire order has been passed without considering any submissions made by the appellant, which runs into 83 pages. Though the statements of various persons have been relied upon by the Commissioner, specifically of Shri Kamlesh S. Patil, his cross-examination though asked for has not been allowed or rejected in the impugned order. The impugned order is totally a non-speaking order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. Adjudicating authority is obligated under law to consider the submissions made in response to the show cause notice and any order passed without consideration of the submissions is in violation of the principles of natural ju....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 932
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - removal of capital goods - case of appellant is that provision of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 would not be applicable to the appellant s case as the goods has been used before the same work removed - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the capital goods on which the credit was availed, has been removed after some use. It is notice that Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(5A) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 deal with the obligation of a personal availing credit when that person removes the capital goods on which the credit has been availed. From the sequence of events, it apparent that there was no Rule for reversal of Cenvat Credit on capital goods cleared after some use. Similar case has been examined by Tribunal in the case of RAGHAV ALLOYS (P) LTD [ 2009 (4) TMI 184 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] wherein it was ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 931
Job work - SSI Exemption - Benefit of N/N. 214/86-CE dated 25.03.1986 as amended by Notification No. 83/94-CE dated 11.04.1994 denied - neither the appellant nor the supplier of raw material has followed the conditions laid down in the said notification - Revenue was of the view that the appellant has wrongly availed the benefit of Notification 8/2003 as amended, on the goods so manufactured on job work basis as well as availed the benefit of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on inputs and cleared the same without payment of central excise duty. HELD THAT:- The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. The Tribunal has in the case of VANDANA DYEING PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2014 (8) TMI 441 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that notwithstanding the fact that the process fabrics are not included in Not....... + More
