Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 163 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 & Decision etc.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1035 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - mistake on the face of record or not - classification of goods - Beneficiale Liquid - DSN Capsules - the appellant filed two separate appeals for the two periods - Revenue states that as the impugned order is common, the said final order will have a binding effect on the appeal, which is pending. Further, he also states that the appellant is seeking a review of the appeal already disposed of, which is not desirable - HELD THAT:- Under the facts and circumstances, firstly both the appeals should have been disposed of together. Secondly, judgement cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant have not been considered as no reason have been cited in the final order for deferring with the views expressed in those judgements. Further, the appellant has suffered prejudice, as appeals were not disposed of together. Both the appeals tagged together for final hearing - ROM application allowed. Put up for hearing on 15.07.2019.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1012 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Pre-deposit - non-compliance with stay order - Held that:- On a query from the Bench the learned Counsel for the appellant failed to produce any evidence in respect of the list of matters or any stay order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. As the appellant failed to produce any order from the appellant authority, we dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the stay order of the Tribunal.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1011 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Pre-deposit - non-compliance with stay order - Held that:- The applicant has failed to comply with the stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order.
- 2014 (6) TMI 1002 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Non providing the worksheet against the confirmed demand in the de-novo proceedings - Held that:- We find that the Tribunal had given necessary direction in so far as if the adjudicating authority would fail to provide the worksheet of demand to the applicants, the adjudication proceedings may be completed based on examination of the reconciliation statement prepared by the appellant.Hence, for the proper appreciation of the Final Order dated 22.04.13 of the Tribunal, the direction at para-8 would be read with para-9.We do not want to pass any opinion regarding non-furnishing of the documents by the department as contented by the applicants in these applications.The ROMs are disposed of with the above directions.
- 2014 (6) TMI 953 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-C.E. - extended period of limitation invoked - Held that:- This Tribunal held it is the case of joint ownership brand “Ravi Masale” by the family members and each of the family member could use the brand name on the products manufactured by them and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, holding that the assessee is entitled to SSI exemption. The logo of Jain Group and the words ‘Jain Pipe’ do not belong to any particular company or manufacturer. Further, the respondents have used the words “JAIN PIPE - JPPL”, which identifies the goods with them only in particular. There is no categorical finding nor claim by any other manufacturer as to ownership of “JAIN PIPE”, brand name. We further hold that under the facts and circumstances, there being regular disclosures to the....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 940 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Cenvat credit reversal - Held that:- As in the facts and circumstances, it is more a case of interpretation of the legal statute and no case is made out of any suppression, fraud or disregard to the provisions of law. The appellant-assessee, without any protest immediately reversed the Cenvat credit on being so pointed out to at the first opportunity, almost 20 months before issuance of the show cause notice. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice, set aside the imposition of penalty and interest sustained vide the impugned order, but under the facts and circumstances, amount of Cenvat credit reversed is upheld and the same stands confirmed.
- 2014 (6) TMI 911 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of pre dpeosit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance - Held that:- there is no proof on record for compliance of the stay order. - applicant has failed to comply with the stay order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order. - Decided against assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 893 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E. - coal supplier under the mistaken belief that duty on coal has been imposed started paying duty after duly intimating the Central Excise Department and the appellants being buyers of the coal (as an input) took Cenvat credit of duty so paid - Held that:- Exemption is subject to condition and therefore prima facie it is not mandatory for the coal supplier to avail of it. Consequently the very basis for denying the Cenvat credit holding that the coal supplier was mandatorily required to avail of the exemption under the said Notification is fatally hit. Further the judgments cited above also clearly support the appellant’s case. - it is evident that the appellants have been able to make out a strong case for waiver for pre-deposit of the remaining amount. Accordingly, the s....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 889 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Imposition of penalty - Bonafide belief - Difference of opinion - Majority order - whether the extended period of limitation could have been invoked in the present case for confirmation of duty demand - Held that:- Rule 2(c) Cenvat Credit Rules, as it stood at the relevant time defined ‘exempted goods’ as goods which are exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon, and includes goods which are chargeable to “Nil” rate of duty, and “final products” was defined as excisable goods manufactured or produced from inputs except matches. During the material point of time, the electricity was not an excisable item at all; therefore, it was not exempted goods nor was it a final product. Though Rule 2(f) included furnace oil used in the manufacture of electricit....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 857 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of rebate claim - recovery of erroneously sanctioned rebate - contradictory statement of transporters - Cross examination opportunity not given - Held that:- Government of India has issued Notification No. 21/ 2004-C.E. (N.T.) dated 06.09.2004 for grant of rebate of central excise duty paid on materials used in the manufacture of export goods. The essential requirements of the notification for claiming rebate are that the duty paid materials, purchased directly from the material manufacturers or from registered dealers, are actually received by the manufacturer of export goods; that the same are actually used in the manufacture of export goods; and that the export goods so manufactured are actually exported. After the Revenue started its investigations regarding alleged fraudulent rebate claims by the main appellant, the Maharashtr....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 856 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Waiver of pre deposit of duty - manufacture - marketability - whether various processes/activities involved in placing the rechargeable battery and battery charger in blister pack by the Applicant would result into manufacture of an excisable goods within the meaning of Section 2(f) of CEA, 1944. - Penalty u/s 11AC - clandestine manufacture and removal of excisable goods - Held that:- Prima facie analysis of the facts disclose that the principal activity/processes carried out by the applicant are in the nature of packing and branding and at this stage it is difficult to say that such processes would fall under the scope of the definition of manufacture in absence of a Chapter Note or Section Note. The judgments cited by the Ld. Special Counsel on the relevance of marketability in ascertaining whether the present resultant product after pa....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 855 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Interest demand - Valuation of goods - cost of the free issue materials were not included in the value of finished goods - Demand of differential duty - whether interest under Section 11AB of CEA, 1944 is attracted on account of the major portion of differential duty paid in July, 2001 and balance in March, 2003 for the clearances effected during July, 1996 to March, 2001 - Held that:- Under sub-section (1) of Sec. 11AA of the Act, as this provision stood at the material time, an assesse who fails to pay the duty determined under sub-section (2) of Section 11AA of the Act, within 3 months from the date of determined of duty is bound to pay interest at the prescribed rate for the period of delay. Sub-section (2) says that sub-section (1) is not applicable where the duty became payable on or after the date on which the Finance Act, 2001 rec....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 854 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of goods - inclusion of inspection charges - Held that:- inspection is being carried out only in respect of sale to M/s. U.P. Jal Nigam. There is no inspection being carried out in respect of sales made to other persons. As such, it can be concluded that such inspection, which was got done from a third party, was on insistence of U.P. Jal Nigam and has got nothing to do with the marketability in the ordinary course. If the same was necessary for marketability of the goods, the same would have been carried out in 100% of the goods manufactured by the assessee. Inasmuch the said inspection is only in respect of sale to one party and inspection charges collected by the appellant from the said party are being paid to the inspecting authorities, we find no justifiable reason to hold that same would be part of the assessable value of the goods - Decided in favour of asessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 853 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
GAS project - goods cleared from one unit whereas the PAC issued was in the name of appellant’s other unit. - facilities to maintain Butt Weld Fittings - Clearance of certain pipe fittings for the project ‘Neelam Heera Reconstruction Project’ and ‘North Tapti Project’ under Project Authority Certificate (PAC) without payment of duty as per the provisions of Notification No. 6/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - non-admissibility of exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. - Held that:- wrong mentioning of address in the PAC was only due to typographical mistake. A procedural mistake cannot be made the basis for denying substantive right when such a manufacturing facility is not available at their Makarpura unit of the appellant. As the details of the same are required to be gone into at the time of final hearing, prima facie appellant has mad....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 852 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Appeal before Commission (appeal) - Bar of limitation - Delay in delivery of order - Held that:- Since the delivery of Order-in-Original was made by dispatch through speed post which has already been held to be improper delivery. The date of receipt of the order by the appellant subsequently, as submitted by the learned counsel has to be treated as date of receipt. Since both sides agree that if that is taken into account appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time, we consider it appropriate that at this stage itself the impugned order should be set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on the stay application as well as appeal in accordance with law - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 851 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of SSI exemption - Manufacturing in name of other person - Held that:- Investigation result revealed discovery of the fact that the business activities of M/s, Soft Pharmaceuticals was carried out from the premises of the respondent situated at 47-48, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, where Administrative Office of the said office was functioning. Shri M.D. Sharma, Representative of M/s. Soft Pharmaceuticals sits in the administrative office of the respondent. The respondent categorically stated in the statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that it had manufactured and sold goods under the brand name 'SOFT Pharmaceuticals' w.e.f. April, 2003. The investigating officers when examined invoices no. 1 dated 1.4.2003 to Invoice no.1524 dated 30.08.2003 along with pamphlets found that product carried out....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 826 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of refund claim - Surrender of registration - Whether refund claim filed by the appellant under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, after surrender of the registration, is admissible or not - Held that:- First appellate authority has rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that appellant has not produced any evidence to prove that the goods have been exported under bond and the unutilized credit has accumulated due to export under bond. It is observed from the case records that the facts available on records clearly suggest that the goods were supplied to 100% EOU under CT-3 certificates as a result of which Cenvat Credit got accumulated in the records of the appellant. These facts are not disputed by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly gone beyond the scope of the show cause noti....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 825 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation of goods - provisional release of the seized goods in the factory premises - Execution of bank guarantee - Held that:- Finished goods which are ready for dispatch are goods which are meant for export as well as for home clearance. As regards the raw material, we do find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded that most of the raw material is procured against advance licences. Needless to say that when the goods are procured against advance licences, they are secured by way of bond to the Customs authorities. To that extent, Revenue's interest seems to be secured. Even if the raw materials which, according to the Revenue, are unaccounted, the said raw materials having been recorded as stock available with the assessee, can be accounted for, subsequently in records and consumption can be watched. We agree with the view of ....... + More
- 2014 (6) TMI 824 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Remission of duty - loss/destruction of goods on account of a fire occurred in the factory - Held that:- Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear appeals arising out of the orders of Commissioner (Appeals) where the appeals relate to loss of goods either in transit or in storage as stated in proviso (a) to Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. - Decided against assessee.
- 2014 (6) TMI 823 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - penalty on dealer - Fraudulent premises - Fake transaction - Fake invoices - Held that:- There are no categorical findings against the appellant so as to prove the charges as alleged in the show-cause notice inspite of there being names available of the alleged supplier in the invoices from whom the appellant allegedly purchased, no enquiry appears to have been done. Further, it is seen that the appellant is situated in Mumbai, whereas the invoices recovered from M/s Accelerated Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. allegedly issued by the appellant are printed by one Ambaji Stationery, Surat. No enquiry has been made with the printer as to who got the stationery printed. Further, the appellant had stated that he had obtained the registration under Central Excise on being inspired by one Chandubhai Patel of Surat, who has also admitted in ....... + More