|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 222 Records
-
2007 (10) TMI 720 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on the Board's Circular No. B1/6/2005-TRU dt. 27-7-2005, by which the scope of manpower recruitment service prior to 16-6-2005 was explained and simultaneously explained the expansion of the scope of the service from 16-6-2005. He submits that they are paying a service tax wherever applicable after 16-6-2005. 4. After hearing both the sides, we feel that the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour and accordingly, we grant unconditional stay and waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the orders, till the disposal of the appeals. The appeals are to be listed in their due course. Stay petitions are disposed of accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 31-10-2007).
-
2007 (10) TMI 709 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppeal No. E/2184/06. Heard parties. Appeal admitted on the question of law as formulated in para 28. Hearing of the appeal expedited.
-
2007 (10) TMI 704 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
... ...
... ... ..... entry has been reversed which amounts to not taking credit. Hence, in this case, both the conditions are satisfied. Hence item No. 1 of the table to notification No. 14/2002-CE would apply and accordingly the grey fabrics would attract nil rate of duty. 12. It is, however, required to be noted that the aforesaid decision is in connection with a particular circular and so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, from a reading of the show cause notice itself, it cannot be concluded that the show cause notice has been issued without any basis or without any reason. It is for the authority to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid ratio is applicable. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions have no substance and the same are dismissed with costs which is quantified at ₹ 25,000/- each and each of the petitioner shall deposit the same before the adjudicating authority within a period of two weeks from today.
-
2007 (10) TMI 703 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n the case of CCE, Delhi-III Vs. Maruti Udyag Ltd. reported in 2007 (81) RLT 804 (P & H). The Special Leave to Civil Appeal No. CC3915/2007 filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III, against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 3. We are of the opinion that Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that if modvat credit was not utilized by the assessee he was not liable to pay interest on the utilised modvat credit. 4. In view of the aforesaid judgment the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and the petition has to be allowed accordingly petition is allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 680 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... licate. The case of the petitioner is that they are using the power for processing colour fixation by passing steam or applying sodium silicate but the case of the Department is that the assessee is engaged in dyeing of various types of cotton woven fabrics, with aid of power, on a machine called “Jigar dyeing or Peding Mengal” in common parlance. When there is a disputed question of fact i.e. whether the petitioner is engaged in colour fixation by passing steam or applying sodium silicate or engaged in dyeing of various types of cotton woven fabrics, we cannot entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there are disputed questions of facts involved. Petition stands dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 679 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Respondents waive service. To be heard along with Central Excise Appeal No. 119 of 2007. Hearing of the appeal expedited.
-
2007 (10) TMI 674 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ELT 47, holding Welding Electrodes to be capital goods upto 23.7.1996 ? (B) Are the words used in or in relation to the manufacture not wide enough to encompass the process by which the Raw Mill and the Cement Mill are rebuilt through welding, without which the Mill cannot carry out activity of cement manufacture ? Shri F.T. Mirza, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of the respondent.
-
2007 (10) TMI 673 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner v. Nagammai Cotton Mills Ltd. Reported in 2003 (153) ELT A94 (SC)- wherein the Tribunal held that Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules 1944 is not mandatory and it is a directory. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assesse and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise to re work out the duty payable by the assesse. This order is called in question raising the substantial question of law as under “Whether MODVAT benefit can be extended suo moto when filing declaration for availment of such facility was a mandatory pre-requisite under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944?” 3. In view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Commissioner v. Nagammai Cotton Mills Ltd. - 3003 (153) ELT A94 (SC), we do not consider that such a question of law arises in this appeal as the same has been already covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 671 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT/MODVAT credit - capital goods - cement - steel bars - waste - rule 57(U) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that: - the cement, steel plates and bars in respect of which modvat credit has been availed of by respondent no.2 have been used for providing support to machines - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (10) TMI 667 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ellant is liable to be penalized under the provisions of Section 11AC and Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. As the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered these provisions of law while upholding the adjudication order, to my mind, the impugned order suffers from infirmity. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order to the extent it upholds the imposition of penalties on the appellant is set aside and remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue afresh, in light of the submissions of the appellants as regards the bonafide and the short levy has taken place in a quarter, wherein there was no delay in filing the return. The impugned order to the extent it upholds penalty is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to consider the issue afresh after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appeal is allowed in respect of the penalties as indicated above. (Pronounced in Court on18/10/2007)
-
2007 (10) TMI 666 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... clarification issued by the C.B.E. & C. The adjudicating Commissioner has discarded the said orders saying that these decisions are not binding on her. She has also failed to take note of the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech clarifying the duty structure for the textile industry, notified under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E., which was issued as a part of the Budget 2002-03. 3. In view of the foregoing, we are of the view that the Commissioner has misdirected herself to apply the higher rate of duty in the case of the appellants, whereas the concessional rate under Notification No. 14/2002-C.E. has been allowed in respect of other units similarly situated. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants....” 8. Respectfully following the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, we hold that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... mpts, in public interest, all tea produced in India and exported by the Export-Oriented Units from the levy and collection of cess.” Ld. SDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. I have carefully considered the case records and rival submissions. As per Circular No. 60/1/2006-CX dt. 13-1-2006 issued by the CBEC, goods are exempt from payment of cess levied under any Act of the Parliament when exported, if in relation to levy and collection of such duty, the provisions of the Central Excise Act and the Rules were applicable. On a combined reading of the CBEC circular dated 13-1-2006 and the Notification dated 1-9-2004 of the Ministry of Commerce, prima facie, cess on tea is not liable to be paid when the same is exported under bond by a star export house. In the circumstances, there shall be complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the cess demanded till the appeal is finally disposed of. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2007 (10) TMI 646 - CESTAT MUMBAI
MODVAT/CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that they have availed cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices supplied by the registered dealer, who has not supplied duty apid inputs but has supplied non duty paid scrap to appellant - Held that: - the Revenue has not considered the fact that the appellant had received and consumed the inputs in the factory premises and paid for the same. There is also no contrary evidence to show that the appellant had not paid the supplier's invoices raised on them - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 621 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... entical product through named differently i.e. “Mahindra Armada”. On the factual matrix, the issue involved in that case is same as it is before us today and in respect of the very same appellant’s factory at Nasik. 15. In our view, the very basis on which the Commissioner has held that the capacity of the vehicle is less than 10 persons, relying upon the provisions of Maharashtra Motor Vehicle Rules does not survive, as we have held in our final order dated 19-7-2005. 16. Accordingly, we are of the view that the appellants have been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour for the waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved in this case. Accordingly, we waive the pre-deposit of the duties and penalties and stay recovery thereof till disposal of the appeal. 17. Since the stakes involved in this case are substantial, we direct the registry to list the appeal itself for final hearing in December 2007. (Pronounced in Court on 9-10-2007)
-
2007 (10) TMI 619 - SC ORDER
Central Excise – Clearance of goods not made on provisional basis - the decision in the case of MAURIA UDYOG LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2006 (8) TMI 49 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that Unable to accept the request as matter covered by judgments of S.C. - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (10) TMI 614 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Rules, 2002 on payment of duty, is allowed under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002?” Without adverting to the facts of the instant appeals, we deem it just and appropriate to notice that another similar appeal challenging same common order dated 9-2-2007 (A-3), being C.E.A. No. 81 of 2007 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. M/s. Indo Dane Textile Industries, Kabri Road, Panipat) has already been dismissed by us on 12-10-2007 2012 (275) E.L.T. 189 (P & H) . Accordingly, these appeals are also dismissed in terms of our detailed order passed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak v. M/s. Indo Dane Textile Industries, Kabri Road, Panipat (C.E.A. No. 81 of 2007, decided on 12-10-2007).
-
2007 (10) TMI 612 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal in favour of the respondents in the cases mentioned as follows (1) CCE, Vadodora-II v. Gandhi Travels - 2007 (79) RLT 774 (CESTAT-Ahmd.) (2) Prasnnna Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and ST, Pune - 2007 (8) STB 34 (Tribunal-Mumbai) (3) Shree Khurana Travels Raj Tours and Travels v. CCE, Pune. 3. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the revenue are rejected.
-
2007 (10) TMI 607 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... 0 will not fall under chapter heading 56.07 as the understanding was that the appropriate duty paid on the inputs will include nil duty also and it is only after a clarification by the Apex Court in its decision in Dhiren Chemicals, holding that nil duty payment is not payment of duty at appropriate rate, that the show cause notice came to be issued for the period subsequent to the date of the clarification. In this view of the matter, no charge of suppression can be leveled and upheld against the appellants. In the result, we hold as under - (a) The product in dispute is eligible for exemption in terms of notification no. 30/04 dated 9.7.04. (b) The benefit of exemption in terms of notification no. 6/02 is not available to the product in dispute for the period prior to 9.7.04. (c) The demand for the period prior to 9.7.04 is barred by limitation. 5. In the light of the above, we set aside the demands confirmed and penalties imposed upon the appellants and allow the appeals.
-
2007 (10) TMI 542 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Production capacity based duty - Abatement ... ... ... ... ..... nd Vijay Anand Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad 2004 (177) E.L.T. 420 (Tri.-Bang.) . 2. emsp We have heard both sides in the matter. We are of the considered opinion that both the authorities are not correct in directing the assessee to pay the duty in tax as the assessee had paid the duty in advance for the month of July. The authorities have gone by Rule 96ZQ(f) which applies for closure of stenter for less then one month. In the present case, the stenters was closed for more than one month. Therefore Rule 96ZQ(g) is applicable which exempts deposit of duty if the stenter is closed for more than one month. The Tribunal has clarified this issue in the three cited judgments which applies to the facts of the case. The plea of the assessee is required to be accepted in the light of these judgments. Impugned order is not legal and proper. The same is set aside by allowing the appeal. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2007 (10) TMI 541 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Production capacity based duty ... ... ... ... ..... The appellant cannot be penalized for the short coming of the Department. Further the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the decisions of the Southern Bench of CEGAT in the case of Chimmanlal Silk Mills reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 766 (Tri.) holding that the demand of Rs. 5,35,246/- on account of inclusion of the length of gallery does not survive. She has also held that no duty could be demanded for the balance amount of Rs. 3,33,713/- for the period during which High tech make stenter was defunct. Since the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the factual position of the closure of certain chambers of the stenters we do not find that any useful purpose will be served in allowing the Revenue rsquo s appeal. Hence the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed. rdquo Following ratio of the above decision, we allow the appeal with consequential relief if any. (Operative portion of the Order has been pronounced in the open Court on completion of hearing on 8-10-2007)
........
|
