|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 188 Records
-
2014 (10) TMI 189 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE dt.16.3.95 - Held that:- Notification No.67/95 makes no special exemption in respect of 'exports', perhaps, for the reason that exports are not treated as 'exempted goods'. The SEZ Act defines 'Export' - to include supplies to SEZ from the Domestic Tariff Area. exports to SEZ will not fall under the category of 'exempted goods' and the pre-deposit was waived in that case. Hence, following the ratio of these two cited decisions, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit in this case also pending disposal of the appeal - Following decision of assessee's own previous case - Stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 188 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Exemption benefit under Notification No.22/2003-CE, dated 31.03.2003 - receipt of the inputs without payment of Central Excise duty under CT-3 Certificate - Held that:- Main contention of the applicant is that they have cleared the final products ‘Warp Rings’, after value addition on payment of duty of ₹ 13,70,551/-. In any event, if the applicant paid duty on the inputs, they could have availed Cenvat credit on the clearances of the final products. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that they have mis-declared the description of the final products as valve. They camouflaged of clearances of Warp Rings, which is originally displayed as a textile weaving machinery parts as manufactured by them - Prima facie, applicant procured inputs without payment of duty under CT-3 Certificate and used in the manufacture of the final products and cleared on payment of duty. It is seen that the applicant paid duty on the clearance of the finished goods, more than the amount as demanded herein - Stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 187 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Non production of relevant documents - Held that:- G-23A part-I & part-II records were maintained during the relevant period by the Appellant. However, we agree with the Ld.A.R. for the Revenue that these aspects needs scrutiny by the adjudicating authority before taking a call on the admissibility of CENVAT Credit to the Appellant during the said period. Accordingly, after setting aside the impugned order we remit the case to the Ld.Commissioner for deciding the issue afresh taking into consideration the evidences produced before this Tribunal and also evidences that would be produced by the Appellants in support of their claim that they have correctly availed CENVAT Credit by maintaining proper accounts during the period in dispute. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Benefit of Notification No. 67/95 dt. 16.3.95 - first unit send the goods to second unit without payment of duty but availing cenvat credit - second unit cleared to goods on payment of duty after processing - Held that:- On perusal of the record, we find that in defence of the allegation made in the show cause, the respondents have prayed that if it is held that the respondents are two separate units, in that case, if duty is paid by one unit the same is entitled as Cenvat Credit to the another unit. As the respondent had made this defence in the replies to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority agreed with this contention of the respondents and passed the order holding that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit of duty paid by the another unit. The same view has been affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned orders. As in this case, it is the defence of the respondents that if the benefit of notification is denied to them and it is held that the respondents are two different units, in that case, if duty is confirmed against one unit same is entitled as Cenvat Credit to another unit - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 161 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Manufacture - activity of dilution of sulphuric acid and finished product is supplied to the battery companies for use in the batteries - revenue is of the view that the said activity amounts to manufacture - Held that:- The activity undertaken by the applicant is that they are purchasing 98% concentrated sulphuric acid, and as per the requirement of the customers they diluted it with demineralised water, to attain desired concentration. The product that emerged was diluted sulphuric acid (28-50%), which was marketable and it is specifically used in the manufacture of battery manufacturing units. Therefore, in terms of definition under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, we hold that the appellant are engaged in the activity of manufacture. - Demand of duty and interest confirmed - penalty set aside - appellant allowed to use cenvat credit - Decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 160 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Recovery of refund already granted - excess duty paid - revision in price on the basis of debit note - Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of amount mentioned in the debit notes would be included in the transaction value which is beyond the definition of the transaction value under Section 4(1)(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- It is seen from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the amount of ₹ 4.30 crores was repaid and adjusted by the applicant in the subsequent clearance to M/s. Mando India Steering Systems. Prima facie, we find that the applicant is not the beneficiary of ₹ 4.30 crores - debit notes has a bearing in transaction value which would be examined at the time of appeal hearing at length. waiver of predeposit of entire dues and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal is granted - Stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 159 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre deposit - Refund on input service credit - Notification No.41/2007-(ST) dated 6.10.2007 - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) already accepted that the eligibility of refund claim for export made from 1.10.2008 to 31.12.2008 only and not for the export made prior to 1.10.2008. Prima facie, we find that the show-cause notice itself restricted the refund to ₹ 4,22,062/- and main allegation in the show-cause notice that the assessee has submitted the bills pertaining to over one year from the date of LET export as per the notification. Prima facie, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee is strictly eligible for refund of the duty which is within the limitation. Hence, the applicant made out a prima facie case for waiver of entire amount of dues. Accordingly, we grant wavier of predeposit of the entire amount of dues and stay its recovery during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 158 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of differential duty - Difference in value of goods - Held that:- Similar issue came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of International Auto Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bihar reported in [2005 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it was held that the appellants are not required to pay duty on the free supplies by the principle manufacturer, who after receiving the intermediate products have cleared the finished goods on payment of duty. In appellant's own case also, this Tribunal has held that appellants are not required to pay differential duty in the similar situation. Therefore, following the decision in appellant's own case, we hold that in this appeal also the appellants are not required to pay differential duty as demanded. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 157 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Levy of duty as per CAS-4 - CBEC Circular No. 692/08/2003-CX dated 13.2.2003 - Held that:- Considering the fact that the issue has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Vs. Cadbury India Ltd. reported in [2006 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it was held that for the period prior to 13.02.2003 also that duty is payable as per Board's Circular No. 692/8/2003-CX dt. 13.2.2003. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, same are upheld - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 156 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Wavier of pre-deposit - Denial of input service credit - manufacturing as well as trading activity - Held that:- applicant is not entitled to take CENVAT credit. With regard to the limitation issue and the intention of the applicant to avail credit will be seen at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Therefore, at this stage, we direct the applicant to pre-deposit a sum of ₹ 70,00,000 within eight weeks from today. On such compliance being reported, balance amount of duty, interest and penalty shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted partly.
-
2014 (10) TMI 129 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - 100% credit availed in the first year - Held that:- There being no dispute as to eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit on capital goods, the contravention that has arose is only in respect of the availment of 50% in the credit in the same year instead of next year needs to be condoned. At the same time, the appellant is required to pay appropriate interest on the amount of such credit availed by him in the same financial year. On a specific query from the bench, it was pointed that the appellant has already paid the appropriate interest on the excess availed Cenvat Credit. Ld. Departmental Representative does not dispute the payment of interest. Since the appellant has already compensated the Central Government by paying the interest on the amount of excess Cenvat Credit availed by him; which was eligible to be availed by him in subsequent year, the question of recovery of the Cenvat Credit of the 50% availed by them in the same financial year does not arise.
As regards the penalties imposed by the lower authorities, justification given by the appellant that the availment of total Cenvat Credit of the duty paid on the capital goods was inadvertent as the capital goods in question was parts of oxygen plant and different valves seems to be correct as there could be a confusion as to these capital goods may be consumables. Since there is no malafide that could be attributed to such availment of credit nor does the records reveal anything to hold a view against appellant, I am of the view that the penalty imposed on the appellant is unwarranted and needs to be set aside. interest liability which is paid by the appellant is correct, while the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant is also held to be correct and the penalties imposed are set aside. - decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 128 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - Whether the appellants were eligible for CENVAT Credit of Service Tax paid on "onward transportation" for delivery of final products upto the customer's premise or port of export - Held that:- From the copies of invoices and the respective purchase orders it is seen that the terms of delivery of goods have been specified in the purchase orders. In some purchase order the terms is specified as "free delivery to our factory" or "FOB destination" or "delivery charges inclusive" or "delivery at Goa Plant" etc. This clearly indicates that the price of the goods was inclusive of delivery charges and the ownership of the goods remained with the appellants during the transit and the same passed on to the buyer only on delivery at the delivery point. Similarly, the insurance policy drawn in favour of the appellants also indicates that the ownership of the goods in question remained with the appellants till the delivery point - Following decision of ABB Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and Parth Poly Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 127 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Waiver of the pre-deposit - Denial of rebate claim - Held that:- adjudicating authority has recorded that the processors of grey fabrics from whom the appellant had purportedly got the goods processed had clearly indicated that they have not supplied any goods to the appellant and some of the firms were not at all to be found and were either fake / bogus or non-existing firms. appellant had approached one of the broker of textile and sought for only central excise invoices and that also of high value fabrics and in turn agreed to give premium / commission to the tune of 5% to 7% of the value shown in the invoices. - adjudicating authority has recorded detailed findings of the ineligibility of the appellant to claim rebate of duty paid by them on export of goods. As against such a detailed findings, we are of the view that the grounds taken in appeal by the appellant herein needs to be appreciated in depth which can be done only at the time of the final disposal of appeal. - appellant has not made any case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. At the same time, as the appellant is pleading severe financial hardship, keeping in mind that identically placed appellant Amar Fashions application for waiver of amounts was considered sympathetically and waiver of balance amounts was granted on the ground that said Amar Fashions has deposited an amount of ₹ 50.00 lakhs; we direct the appellant herein to deposit an amount of ₹ 45.00 lakhs for hearing and disposing the appeal on merits - Partial stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 126 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - Notification 35/2003-CE dated 10.04.2003 - Relevant documents not produced - Held that:- Duty on the fabrics was introduced with effect from 01.04.2003 and Rule 9A of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002, was introduced for availment of CENVAT Credit on the fabrics lying in the factory of the assessee as on 31.03.2003, Notification No. 35/2003 provides that if any assessee is not able to produce the documents of paying duty for availment of credit, then they can avail the credit on the formula prescribed as per the said Notification. It is not disputed that the appellant has taken the CENVAT credit without producing the duty paying documents as per the formula prescribed as per Notification 35/2003 dated 10.04.2003. A buyer of fabrics, who is unable to produce the document evidencing actual payment of duty are entitled to avail credit as per Rule 9A(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 - to avail Cenvat Credit on the fabrics lying in stock on 31.03.2003, the appellants were not required to produce any documentary evidence of duty paid on the fabrics as per Rule 9A(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 125 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - Job work - Whether CENVAT Credit is required to be denied, in view of the provisions of Rule 6(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules to the Respondent with respect to credit taken on common inputs/raw material used in the manufacturing of final product on job work basis under Notification No.214/86-CE dt.25.03.1986 read with Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - Held that:- both the lower authorities have given a categorical finding that Notification No.214/86-CE is, though an exemption notification, but the same is prescribing a procedure to delay the payment of duty and is subject to payment of duty on the finished goods by the supplier of the raw material. Notification No.214/86-CE is only a device to postpone duty payment when read with the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules. Even if a job worker pays duty on the goods manufactured by him the same will be eligible as CENVAT Credit to the supplier of the raw material making it a totally revenue neutral situation. Following decision of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd Vs CCE Pune [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Kinetic Engn. Ltd Vs CCE Pune-II [2006 (5) TMI 410 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 124 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Interest on differntial duty - whether the appellant would be liable to pay interest or not - Held that:- It is well settled law that the provisions of law, which were in force, during the relevant period, have to be adopted for deciding any disputed issue. Reference in this regard can be made to decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Daman vs. Nirmala Dyechem reported in [2011 (3) TMI 771 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD]. The provision of Section 11AB during the relevant period i.e. prior to 11.05.2001 were providing for interest payment only in those cases where duty of excise have not been levied or paid with intention to evade payment of duty on account of reason of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. The Tribunal, while remanding the matter has already held that there is no suppression or any malafide on the part of the assessee and has extended the benefit of limitation as also penalty to the assessee. In such a scenario the provision of Section 11AB, as were in existence during the relevant period, would not get attracted inasmuch as the same related to payment of interest only in case of non payment of duty by reason of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement etc. Accordingly, while upholding the confirmation of duty, as not being contested by the appellant, in the present case, we set aside the confirmation of demand of interest - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 122 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of input credit - whether the appellant imported certain inputs/capital goods and Bills of Entry were in the name of their Head Office in all the six cases but in one case the address of the appellant itself was mentioned in the Bill of Entry - Held that:- it is not in dispute that lorry receipts and the Bills of Entry are having endorsements in the name of the appellant. Therefore, as per Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on inputs/capital goods. The lower authorities have not understood the said provisions in true spirit therefore, they passed the impugned order. As the order is totally wrong and contrary to the provisions of law therefore, the same is set aside by holding that the appellant is entitled to take CENVAT Credit on the inputs/capital goods in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 121 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Extended period of limitation - Valuation - what should be the value of polyamide chips manufactured by them which have been used captively in the manufacture of final product i.e. polyester filament yarn when they have also purchased polyamide chips from the open market - Held that:- Valuation Rules clearly state that if the comparable price is available, in that situation the valuation is to be opted by invoking Rule 6(b)(i) of the Valuation Rules, not as per Rule 6 (b)(ii). As the issue is that whether Rule 6 (b)(i) is applicable to the facts of this case or Rule 6(b) (ii) of the Valuation Rules is applicable to this case, therefore we hold that the extended period of limitation is not invokable - whole of the demand has been confirmed against the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation. In these circumstances, we hold that the issue or interpreting particular provisions of the Rules. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. As extended period is not invokable, therefore the impugned demands are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 120 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - applicants was clearing their finished products through Pir-Pau and BPT pipelines to their warehouses - Held that:- Prima facie the Pir-Pau pipeline belongs to the applicant as contended by them and they are paying duty on the clearance of the goods. With regard to BPT pipeline, the demand has been confirmed on the basis of presumption and assumption. As in the earlier round of litigation, unconditional waiver has been granted by this Tribunal [2012 (3) TMI 364 - CESTAT MUMBAI], thus, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 91 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Transfer of unutilized CENVAT credit - transfer of capital goods - Held that:- when the matter was called, the learned counsel submitted three delivery challans covering the movement of capital goods from the units to the new units. Further, he also submitted that there was no credit relating to capital goods in the books of accounts and therefore there was no transfer of credit. Ongoing through the jurisdictional Range Officer s reports available in both the orders of the lower authorities, we find that Commissioner (A) while coming to the conclusion that capital goods had been transferred and there is no credit to be transferred, has seen the delivery challans. Delivery challans numbers and the dates are available in paragraph 11 of the impugned order. In view of the fact that there is evidence of movement of capital goods and both the Range Officers have not mentioned anything specifically regarding credit relatable to capital goods and naturally, logical conclusion would be that there is no CENVAT credit attributable to the capital goods to be transferred to units. - Decided against Revenue.
....
|
