|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 188 Records
-
2014 (10) TMI 1066 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - clearances to SEZ Developers even prior to 2008 - specific amendments made to Cenvat Credit Rules, whether the said amendments were prospective or retrospective? - HELD THAT:- This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S FOSROC CHEMICALS (INDIA) PVT LTD AND OTHERS [2014 (9) TMI 633 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein it was held that amendment has to be construed as retrospective in nature and the benefit of Rule 6(6)(i) as amended in 2008 has to be extended to the goods cleared to a ‘developer’ of a Special Economic Zone for their authorised operations. Therefore, there are no merit in this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 992 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine Removal - principles of natural justice - case of appellant is that they were not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the whole case of the department is based upon the unsigned store register - Held that:- When the CEO and the Works Manager themselves admitted to the fact of such clearances as recorded in their own store despatch register. Their contention that they were not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and that violated the principles of natural justice is devoid of merit, more so when their statements were inculpatory and were never retracted.
An admitted fact hardly needs to be proved - In the present case, apart from the inculpatory statements evidence in the form of the written record, the godown despatch register is also available.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (10) TMI 946 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - input services - outward transportation service from the place of removal - Held that: - The definition of inputs service during the relevant period included in its ambit the transportation from the place of removal - In this regard Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of CCE & ST, LTU Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that transportation charges incurred by manufacturer for clearance for final product from place of removal were included in definition of input service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (10) TMI 937 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Substantial expansion of the installed capacity - benefit of N/N. 49/2003-C.E. & 50/2003-C.E - case of Revenue is that there was no expansion in the capacity of veneer lathe machine section of the appellants’ factory and therefore their capacity to produce veneer had not been increased and veneers are captively consumed for manufacture of their final product - Held that: - The letter of Indian Plywood Industries Research & Training Institute stating that for ascertaining the installed capacity of a plywood factory, the hot press capacity alone is considered as the guiding factor - there is no dispute that the veneer producing capacity has not been increased. At the same time it is also not in dispute that with the increase in the capacity of the hot press section their capacity to produce their final product expanded by more than 25% - reliance placed in the case of CCE, Dibrugarh v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. [2005 (1) TMI 504 - CESTAT, KOLKATA], where it was held that The language in the Notification requires substantial expansion in industrial unit and the expansion is not with reference to any individual section of the unit or machinery in the unit - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 931 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - eligible inputs - mirror assembly - sari guard - tool kit - denial on the ground that the said items are not used in or in relation to the manufacture of the Motorcycle - Held that: - all three impugned items are cleared along with the motor cycle and the value thereof is included in the assessable value of the motor cycle - for motor vehicle, the tool kit and the first aid kit has to the part of the vehicle before the same can be put to use - the final product cannot be given restricted meaning so as to mean as the engine of the vehicle or the chassis but all things which are necessary to make the final product marketable - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 927 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Whether the appellant is required to pay the interest and penalty on differential duty paid by them, when the show cause notice dated 22-4-2008 was issued to the appellant for the same issue, beyond a period of 5 years, where the duty demand itself is time-barred?
Held that: - the issue of valuation, resulting in additional demand is interpretational as the appellant had voluntarily paid the differential amount and further the demand of interest and penalty have been clearly raised much after the relevant period, taking into consideration the scheme of the Central Excise law, and the limitation period prescribed for various purposes under different Sections and Rules, a reasonable period of limitation would be six months or five years depending on whether there have been any suppression of facts etc., as held in case of Commissioner of Customs, Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. [1999 (10) TMI 701 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (10) TMI 922 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - Waiver of redemption fine - Released of goods for home consumption or re-export - Held that: - The Tribunal apparently ignored that the appellant had made a specific prayer for release of goods for home consumption on payment of requisite duty - Appeal allowed by of remand to CESTAT.
-
2014 (10) TMI 910 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Test of evidence - goods received by the appellant from M/s. Patil Steel Wires, Goa who received goods from one Maurya Alloys Industries Limited - link between receipt of the goods by M/s. Patil Steel Wires from M/s. Maurya Alloys Industries Limited - non-existence of M/s. Patil Steel Wires - Held that:- Law requires that there should have been finding based on evidence as to whether the goods were loaded in transport Maurya Alloys Industries Limited for delivery to M/s. Patil Steel Wires. If so what was the mode of transportation? Similarly, there should have been cogent evidence brought to record to show that M/s. Patil Steel Wires was not in existence and that concern had not received the goods from Maurya Alloys Industries Limited. No live link has come to record. Therefor, appeal is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to grant fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant confronting the outcome of investigation and testing the evidence on record as well as the defence that may come before him, shall pass appropriate order. - Matter remanded back
-
2014 (10) TMI 898 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - order made prior to the amendment made u/s. 35F which came into force w.e.f. 6-8-2014 - Held that:- since vires of enactment is under challenge, let copy of petition along with documents annexed thereto be separately served in the office of Additional Solicitor General who is representing Union of India. In the meanwhile, the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall not be dismissed provided the petitioner comply with the condition of pre-deposit in terms of amending Section 35F introduced w.e.f. 6-8-2014 within a period of two weeks. - Appeal to be listed on another date
-
2014 (10) TMI 896 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit denied - demand confirmed along with interest and penalty on the ground that the said amount of Cenvat credit was inadmissible - Held that:- As contended by appellants that the “inputs” were not cleared by them as such and were actually used for manufacture. It is only when some parts were found to be defective during manufacture or testing of the transmission equipment that such parts were re-exported for compensation/replacement and therefore provisions of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be invoked inasmuch as the same relates to clearance of the inputs as such.
We find that the Tribunal in an inter parties Final Order [2015 (5) TMI 93 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] involving identical issue has decided in favour of the appellants and set aside a similar demand (for a different period). Following the precedent and for the reason like, we dispense with the pre-deposit and allow the appeal.
-
2014 (10) TMI 884 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Order of pre deposit - Demand of Central Excise Duty - clandestine removal - Held that:- The material fact manifesting evasion of ₹ 9,39,10,915/- as outcome of investigations, gravity of allegations and strength of evidences on record prima facie show that interest of revenue has been prejudiced by the appellant causing loss to it. This calls for pre-deposit to work out an interim modality since balance of convenience tilts in favour of Revenue and without pre-deposit order, irreparable injury may be sustained by Revenue. We are of the opinion that order of pre-deposit shall not cause under hardship to the appellants in view of the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. v. CCE reporting (2006 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ).
Therefore keeping in view above findings and prejudice caused to Revenue, Appellant (M/s. KPPPL) are directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only) within eight weeks of receipt of this order and submit compliance on 30-12-2014. Subject to compliance to this direction, realisation of the balance of amount of duty of ₹ 4,39,10,915/- followed by interest on the duty as well as penalty shall remained stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2014 (10) TMI 877 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on the basis of a certificate dated-29/11/2011 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Customs relating to eleven bills of entry against which the goods were imported by the appellant in the year 2006 to 2008 - Penalty imposed under Rule 15 read with Section 11AC of CEA, 1944 - Held that:- It is the claim of the appellant that even though initially it was brought under advance license scheme, but later duty was discharged in the year 2011 and the same were taken for manufacture of goods meant for local clearances. We find from the submission of the appellant that the goods all along had been kept and later used in the manufacture of the finished goods. This aspect was not examined being not placed before the Ld. Commissioner alongwith the documents. Both sides agree that these facts need to be verified by the adjudicating authority. In the result, we find that it is a fit case of remand to the Ld. Commissioner for determination of the issues afresh after taking into consideration, the evidences on record and that would be produced by the appellant. It is made clear that all issues are kept open.Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to the Appellant
-
2014 (10) TMI 875 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of the value of clearances - Whether value of clearances made by M/s. Parag Industries was required to be clubbed with the clearances made by the appellant - Extended period of limitation - Tribunal in [2013 (11) TMI 689 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has confirmed the demand - Held that:- Revenue clearly proves its case establishing total concern, control, nexus and inseparable link between the assessee and its other proprietary concern viz., Parag Industries
The question is fully covered by the decision of the Apex court in the case of Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. [2004 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. In the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Parle Bislery Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 26 - Supreme Court of India], the view taken in earlier decision has been upheld and, thus, the above two decisions of the Apex Court are binding on us. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 866 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Penalty u/s 11AC - Commissioner reduced penalty as no clandestine removal of the goods in question - Held that:-Adjudicating authority penalized the appellant under Rule 25 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise of 1944. Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 deals with circumstances in which penalty can be imposed taking shelter of section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. The present case is a case which is concerned for non-accountal of excisable goods manufactured or stored by the appellants. It is in respect of shortage noticed in the course of inventory during investigation. When such is the event this is a case inviting penal provision of section 11AC with the aid of Rule of 25 Central Excise 2002. Therefore, the appeal is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeal) to reconsider the provision of law relating to penalty and pass appropriate order granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
-
2014 (10) TMI 865 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine manufacture - Held that:- Facts in the present case are identical to the facts of R A Castings [ 2011 (1) TMI 1302 - Supreme Court of India ] wherein held that in the absence of any evidence to show procurement of raw material, mode of transport of the raw material to the factory, transport documents, details of payment identity of buyers receipt of sales receipt from the buyers and the transporters of the final product, the entire case of the Revenue is based upon assumption and presumption. It was also held that Central Excise authorities have no jurisdiction to examine the appellants statutory records which stand audited and reflected in the income tax returns.and there is virtually no other evidence reflecting upon clandestine manufacture and clearance of the appellants product, we, by following the above decision, set aside the impugned orders and allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2014 (10) TMI 861 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI
Maintainability of application with Settlement Commission - Outstanding Central Excise duty - non-compliance of the provisions of clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the applicant has not paid the entire admitted duty liability besides not quantified the interest and paid the same - Held that:- The Bench considers that the application is not maintainable and liable for rejection for non-compliance of the provisions of clause (d) of proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 since the additional amount of duty accepted by the applicant in his application should be paid along with interest due under Section 11AA. Accordingly, the Bench rejects the application under Section 32F(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the applicant is at liberty to approach this Commission after complying with the requirements of provisions of Section 32E(1)(d) ibid.
-
2014 (10) TMI 841 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Validity of impugned order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- notices have been issued and received back without any proper acknowledgment. Appellant has produced photocopies of some documents, made part of the file. - The order impugned was made ex parte. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 840 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Whether the learned Tribunal has committed any quasi judicial indiscipline by not following the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and in following the judgment of the learned Tribunal, which was rendered while relying on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and various other High Courts - Held that:- Tribunal should not have ignored the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court simply because the other High Courts have proceeded as observed in a judgment of the Tribunal without reading the judgment of Division Bench of this Court. On that ground, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 830 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Demand of differential duty - Valuation u/s 10A - Held that:- Respondent in the impugned order proceeded to refer to the order in original dated 3-9-2010 and the order in original dated 29-2-2012. The order in original dated 3-9-2013 is now the subject matter of appeal before the CESTAT and the CESTAT by order dated 31-7-2012, has granted waiver of the requirement of pre-deposit and stayed the collection of duty during the pendency of the appeal. In so far as the order in original dated 29-12-2012 is concerned, that order has been reversed by an order in appeal dated 30-1-2013 and that was pointed out by the petitioner in his reply dated 3-4-2013 furnishing a copy. The first respondent after referring to the two orders, passed the impugned order, when the first respondent ought not have placed reliance, since on such order has been stayed by the CESTAT and the other order has been reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and proceeded to confirm the demand.
The manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent, cannot be appreciated. It is admitted by the respondents that as against the order in appeal dated 30-1-2013, the Department has preferred an appeal to the CESTAT and the same is now pending before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order has been passed on account of sheer non-application of mind and based on irrelevant consideration, without reference to the orders passed by the superior authorities viz. the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the CESTAT. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 829 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC - Mens rea - Whether penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act read with Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules can be imposed when there is no finding of mens rea - Held that:- penalty may only be imposed, if failure to deposit duty is occasioned by wilful misstatement, fraud and collusion, etc., i.e. mens rea. Thus, before an adjudicating authority proceeds to levy penalty it is required to record a finding, in terms of Section 11AC(1)(a) of the Act. - A perusal of the order passed by the Assessing Authority reveals that it has treated levy of penalty as an automatic consequence of failure to pay duty, thereby rendering its order illegal, insofar as it relates to imposition of penalty. The Appellate Authority and the Tribunal failed to discern this error. - Decision in the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
........
|
