|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 71 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.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1184 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - 3MM Stranded Ply wire - related party transaction - applicability of Section 4 (1) (b) of CEA, 1944 - to be valued at 110% of the cost of production of such goods as per CAS-4 as envisaged in Rule 10 (a) read with Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 or not? - HELD THAT:- The authorities below have concluded that valuation under Section 4 (1) (b) has to be adopted and not the transaction value mainly on account of the fact that the six units are inter-connected undertakings. However, from the Order-in-Original or the impugned order there is no discussion how the buyers are related persons. As per Rule 10 (a) of the Valuation Rules only if the buyers and seller are related in the manner specified under the sub-clause (ii), (iii), (iv) of Clause-(b) of Sub-section (3) of ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1181 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Imposition of penalty - irregularly availed CENVAT Credit - credit availed on the same invoice twice in the month of June 2014 - It is contended that, they had no intention to evade payment of Cenvat credit and they had already reversed the amounts on being pointed out by the department - HELD THAT:- There are no doubt that the appellant had wrongly availed Cenvat credit twice in the same invoice. It is not the case where one could have a doubt about the admissibility of such Cenvat credit. Evidently, nobody can legitimately claim Cenvat credit twice on one invoice. Similarly, with respect to the capital goods removed after use, they have reversed inadequate amount of Cenvat credit which remains undisputed. The intention is self evident and the violation of Act and Rules are undisputed - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1096 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Recovery of dues - sick company - Wrongful adjustment of sanctioned refund - demand of interest - relevant period starting from 19 March, 2017 (expiry of three months from the date of the order dated 20 December, 2016 passed by the Tribunal) till the date of payment of refund amount or not - HELD THAT:- It is not possible to accept this submission of the learned Authorized Representative of the Department. As noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the dues pertaining to the orders dated 18 October 2001 and 23 February 2001 confirming the demands, were not disclosed by the Department or the earlier management to the BIFR and the same were not considered in the scheme sanctioned by BIFR. The BIFR had also by order dated 22 May, 2002 protected the management from recovery of dues which were not disclosed by the old management or not provided....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1052 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - rejection for the reason that invoices of input service bear handwritten serial number - HELD THAT:- In the appellant’s own earlier case a show cause notice F.no. V(CH.70) 3-31/DEM/10- 11 dated 30/05/2011 was issued on the same issue that whether the appellant is entitled for Cenvat Credit on the invoice issued by the service provider which bears handwritten serial number. That case was travelled up to this Tribunal in appeal no. E/11069/2015. This Tribunal in KRUPA TRADING COMPANY VERSUS C.C.E & S.T. -VALSAD [2020 (2) TMI 293 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] decided the matter in appellant’s favour. The reason for denial of the Cenvat Credit in the above decision of the Tribunal and in the present case is absolutely identical. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 998 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Interest on delayed refund - whether the appellant is entitled for interest on the delayed payment of refund either at the rate of 6% or at the rate of 12% of the amount of refund? - Section 11BB of CEA - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the section leaves no doubt that the assessee is entitled to interest if the payment had not been paid to him within 3 months of finalization of the claim at such rate as is prescribed under the law. The Section itself records that the interest be given at such rate, which should not be below 5%, nor should be exceeding the rate at 30% per annum - Similar is the intention of Legislature apparent from Section 35FF of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, as per statute itself, the interest rate may vary within the range of rate at 5% to 30%. The notification as relied upon cannot supersede the statute. Keeping in vie....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 910 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - It is the case of the Revenue that no material was received by the appellant against these invoices and only invoices were received and CENVAT Credit has been taken - HELD THAT:- As far as the invoices issued by M/s Swastik Insulators are concerned, two of these pertain to the invoices issued against the materials supposed to have been received by them from M/s Rajeswari Metallurgicals Limited, Bhiwadi, Mumbai. In respect of these invoices, the evidences in favour of the Revenue are the statements of Shri R.S. Elanjeran, Proprietor of M/s Swastik Insulators given on 31.03.2008 in which he confirmed that they have not received any material nor sold it to the appellant and have only issued invoices and made entries in their records and registers. Shri Elanjeran has not been cross examined as he was unw....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 909 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Clandestine removal - shortage of goods - wrong calculation of abatement during the period 2009-10 - Shortage of goods compared to RG-1 register - CENVAT Credit availed on capital goods which were received under the cover of invoices issued in the name of another company. HELD THAT:- After recording that it was indeed a merger of the company as per the order of Hon’ble High Court as per which the assets and liabilities of the merged company were transferred to the transferee company i.e. the appellant and after recording that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to them, the Ld. First appellate authority sought to deny it only on the ground that the appellant should have approached the authorities to obtain permission for availing the CENVAT Credit, in terms of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CCR 2004. A perusal of this rule would show that i....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 908 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Mis-classification of goods - Plant Growth Regulators (Micronutrients) - Bio-fertilizers - Bio-pesticides - whether Plant Growth Regulators under Chapter Heading 3808of Chapter 38 to the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act? - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra as this very Bench of the Tribunal has settled the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of DR K.R.K. REDDY, DIRECTOR, SRI BIO TECH LABORATORIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD - I (VICE-VERSA) [2019 (8) TMI 1251 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where it was held that the demand raised by the department classifying them as Plant Growth Regulators under 3808 cannot sustain - demand set aside. Bio-pesticides of microbial origin - Whether classified under Chapter Heading 3808 as against tariff item 3002of the Central Excise....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 907 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Valuation - crank cases - job-work - captive consumption - applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Rule 10A ibid - demand of short paid duty alongwith interest and penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There was no scope for treating the appellant as an agent of M/s. M & M in any respect and for any purpose whatsoever. It is also made clear that M/s. M & M has agreed to purchase the components from the appellant and further, it has also an insurance clause requiring insuring of premises as well as the equipment with premia being paid by the appellant - There is no dispute that the appellant has in fact discharged the duties before supplying the goods in question to M/s. M & M which is based on the purchase price, as given in the r....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 842 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of CER - Allegation of issuance of Cenvatable invoice to various customers without supplying of goods - HELD THAT:- Since, undisputedly, all the evidences relied upon in the present case were already considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S SUN TEXTILE ENGINEERS, M/S SHAH FOILS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. - SURAT-I [2019 (12) TMI 846 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. Therefore, there is no need to again deal with all the common evidences such as pen drives recovered, documents recovered, etc. - In the present case, the only issue is related to imposition of penalty under Rule 26 against the appellant on the ground that they have fraudulently passed on the credit without supplying the goods. The common evidence such as bill conditioning ledger, statements, etc were also considered. As the Tribunal has come to a conc....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 841 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT Credit - slag - exempt goods - benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - It is the case of the department that in terms of section 5A(1A) manufacturers are barred to remove absolutely exempted goods on payment of duty and referring to the Board’s Circular No.940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011 - Period of dispute is from November 2009 to August 2014 - HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2013 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and M/S NEULAND LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD- I [2013 (11) TMI 1339 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. The Tribunal while dealing with the implication of Board’s Circular dated 14.01.2011 held that there is no provision or Rule under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which puts an obligat....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Area Based exemption - goods manufactured in the factory shed at Khasra No. 115 and Plot No. B of Khasra No. 119 - Board Circulars dated 22.12.2010, 17.02.2012 and 01.04.2013 - seizure/confiscation of goods - imposition of penalties - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the appellant is entitled to area based exemption with respect to their main unit/ (unit-I) located at Plot F/119. Further, it is undisputed that so far the other two plots are concerned at Khasra No. 115 (Unit-II) earlier M/s Careplus was functioning and availing area based exemption vide declaration dated 27.12.2006. Thus, the appellant unit-II being admittedly the successor of M/s Careplus is also entitled to area based exemption till 27.12.2016. Further, admittedly at the present unit-III of the appellant (Plot B/119), earlier M/s Innovate was functioning and availing ar....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 839 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Method of Valuation - Rule 11 read with Rule 4 or Rule 10(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - related party transaction - inter-connected undertakings - mutuality of interest - the department’s entire case is based on the fact that the appellant in its Annual Returns and Balance Sheets reflected the transaction with JBSL, SRBSL and JBIL as “related party transactions” - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice as well as the impugned order has mis-understood the difference in the concept of “related party” under the Companies Act, MRTP Act and Central Excise Act. In the present case, the department has failed to prove mutuality of interest between the appellant and its buyers. It is settled law that mutuality of interest is a two way street. Further, common dire....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation - Scope of the show cause notice (SCN) - short paid the Central Excise Duty - inclusion of MRP of these toffees in the MRP of the jar cleared by them containing 150 Bubble Gums and 20 Solano Toffees - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the revenue that the jar containing 150 bubble gums and 20 Solano Toffees were to be valued as per the Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the contrary the finding of the Adjudicating authority that the said pack is an whole sale pack and not the retail sale pack has been admitted by the Committee of the Chief Commissioners while directing to file this appeal. After having done so, revenue has proposed to determine the value of whole sale pack by applying the provisions of Section 4A in respect of the Bubble Gums cleared by the appellant and the value of r....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
100% EOU - refund of unutilized balance of cesses in cash - whether the appellant is entitled to cash refund of cesses in respect of which they had a balance in CENVAT credit account which they could not utilise on 01.07.2017? - HELD THAT:- The provisions of CGST allow them to carry forward the same as input tax credit under the CGST. However, the CGST Act does not allow them to carry forward the cesses as input tax credit. The appellant’s case is that as a result they will be losing the credit balance and therefore, the same must be paid to them in cash. There is no provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 or the Central Excise Act 1944 to allow cash refund of cesses lying in balance in the CENVAT Credit account on the ground that appellant was not able to use the same. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 836 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT credit - Capital Goods - allegation that plant erected at site are embedded to the earth and as such, such plant facilities cannot be considered as excisable goods for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit on such disputed items - requirement to avail 50% of CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods during the year of receipt - allegation that appellant had availed 100% CENVAT credit on the capital goods in the financial year of receipt. HELD THAT:- On receipt of the disputed goods, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit under the head ‘inputs’. Those goods received in the factory were subsequently used for assembly/manufacture of capital goods, installed within the factory of manufacture of final products. The period under dispute involved in this case is from September 2006 to December 2008 - all goods excepting ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 835 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - annual capacity of production - Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand was confirmed on the ground that appellant had not intimated the department before stopping production / closing of the factory - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that there is stoppage of production during the period 1.4.1998 to 17.6.1998, the demand of duty, interest or penalty for the disputed period cannot sustain and the same is required to be set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 834 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - MS Items - angles, channels and plates which are used for construction of plant and supporting structures of machinery - period from September 2008 to December 2010 - denial of credit on the ground that the MS items have been used as support structure of capital goods and for laying foundation - HELD THAT:- It is not found that these items have been used as support structure for capital goods. In paragraph-2 the ld. Counsel has explained as to the purposes for which MS items were used. Apart from a bald allegation in the SCN that these items are used as support structures, department has not put forward any cogent evidence to show that these are support structures for particular item of capital goods. As these items have not been used as support structures or for laying foundation, we find that the disallowance of credit is unjustified. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 833 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Valuation - includibility - whether such tools supplied free of cost by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. would get included in the cost of parts on proportionate basis? - HELD THAT:- Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of MUTUAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI] where it was held that Proposition that such inclusion need not be made when after successive income tax depreciation cost of the moulds become zero, not acceptable. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant being manufacturer of motor vehicles part, the cost of the tools has to be included in the assessable value of the parts. As such, there are no infirmity in the invocation of the longer period of limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2020 (3) TMI 832 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of MOT Charges - principles of unjust enrichment - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Though the refund is made under Section 11B, the said section provides for refunds of duty and interest whereas, in the present case, the refund is for MOT charges, therefore provisions of Section 11B will not apply. Consequently, the provisions of unjust-enrichment is also not applicable. In a similar case, where refund was in respect of not duty or interest but for differential penalty, this Tribunal in the case of M/S INDICON COPIER SERVICES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI [2016 (3) TMI 606 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that section for providing refund deals with only duty and interest element, therefore, it was held that unjust-enrichment is not applicable. The ratio of this judgment is applicable in the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|
