|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 80 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 638 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ue to the file of the CESTAT for de novo consideration in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T 3 (SC). In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the CESTAT dated 31st May, 2004 (Exhibit-G to the appeal) is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CESTAT for de novo consideration in accordance with law. All the contentions of both the parties are kept open. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 625 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or the period from December 2000 to September, 2005 by invoking the extended period of limitation. Challenging the order of CESTAT, the present appeal is filed. 7. As noted above, in the present case, during the relevant period there was decision of the CESTAT in the case of IFGL Refractories Limited in favour of the assessee. Moreover, the fact that the assessee had sold the goods with a view to acquire advance licences was a factor known to the Revenue right from inception. In fact, the duty demand by invoking the larger period of limitation has been claimed on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of IFGL Refractories Limited (supra) and not on account of any suppression on the part of the assessee. 8. In these circumstances, the decision of the CESTAT that there were no suppression of facts and consequently no reason for invoking the extended period of limitation cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 609 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itution of India to record findings on the compliance of the directions issued by this Court, as well as the question, whether the non-relied upon documents were actually supplied, failing which the opportunity of cross-examination was a futility, can also be looked into by the Appellate Authority. These are questions of facts, which will require findings, after scrutiny of records, to examine the plea of denial of opportunity given to the petitioner in the proceedings of adjudication. 13. The writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to file statutory Appeal against the order, in the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. As this writ petition was pending since 1-12-2011, in case the petitioner files an appeal along with the application for condonation of delay within a week, the question of delay may be considered by the Tribunal, in accordance with law, taking into account the time spent in pursuing the writ petition in the High Court.
-
2012 (2) TMI 602 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er, we note that there could be bonafide belief for availability of Notification No. 74/93. In fact the decision relied upon by the ld. A.R. in the case of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department (supra) has itself held that there could be a bonafide belief and the intention to evade duty cannot be made out and extended period was not invokable. We also note that it is only subsequently with the declaration of law by the Larger Bench in the year 2008 in the case of Asstt. Engineer (Civil), the benefit of the notification was finally held to be not admissible to the goods manufactured in factory belonging the State Government. For all such reason, we are of the view that the extended period cannot be invoked against the appellant. Accordingly we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty confirmed this count. 8. The pre-deposit of interest and penalty is also being disposed of the stay petition is allowed in the above terms. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 601 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Levy of duty on the basis of shore tank quantity - Held that: - reliance placed in the case of CC & CE, VISAKHAPATNAM Versus RUCHI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. [2007 (11) TMI 210 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], where it was held that refund can’t be denied by stating that assessee hadn’t challenged assessment - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was extended to the assessee on the basis of a certificate issued by the project implementing authority, which is the State Government and, therefore, no fault can be found with the assessee in claiming the benefit of the exemption notification. If the certificate issued by the project implementing authority, namely, the State Government is later on found to be erroneous, the assessee cannot be penalized especially when there is no allegation that the certificate has been obtained fraudulently. Moreover, it is not in dispute that even if the assessee is held liable to pay duty, the assessee was liable to claim refund of the said duty as per the then existing import and export policy. In these circumstances, the present case being a case of revenue neutral, no fault can be found with the decision of the CESTAT in deleting duty, penalty and interest imposed upon the assessee. Accordingly, we see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 566 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 11A(2B) of Central Excise Act, 1944 was claimed in the proceedings? (2) Whether CESTAT is correct in upholding the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein there is no element of suppression in the facts and circumstances of this case? 2. Mr. R. Ashokan waives service for the respondent.
-
2012 (2) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly, 1999 before issuance of show cause notice. The assessee had explained why they have stopped using pentaeryphritol w.e.f. January, 2000. It was explained they were able to find a substitute and secondly there was fall in the market price of the final product i.e. Cable Filling Compound. It was not the case of the appellant that the respondent-assessee was using pentaeryphritol for manufacture of some other substance/final product. 6. In case the Revenue wanted to rely upon a statement of a scientific expert or literature, it was open to them to file the said material or statement before the Tribunal. The appellant did not file/ produce the said material/ statement before the tribunal. 7. Keeping in view the factual position quoted above and the factual findings recorded by the tribunal, we do not find that any substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. It is not possible to hold that the order of the tribunal is perverse. No costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 537 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation upto the place of removal. As the applicant is under the contractual obligation of after sales service during the warranty period, therefore as the applicants are recipient of taxable service, hence prima facie the applicant has a strong case in view of the above decision of the Tribunal and of the Hon’ble High Court. The pre-deposit of the duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal. The stay petition is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 519 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e based in Muradabad, Rampur, Hapur etc. Table 2 consists of 11 parties, who are based in Jammu. Jurisdiction of said parties in tables 1 and 2 has been transferred by the Board to a single Commissionerate at Delhi. 4. A perusal of the show cause notice reveals that there are allegations in respect of transactions conducted between the parties at Jammu and the parties mentioned in Table 1. Similar/identical show cause notices on similar facts have been issued. In these circumstances, Central Board of Excise and Customs in exercise of power under sub-rule 2 to Rule 3 has issued a notification that the cases of the said parties should be consolidated and the hearing should take place at one place, i.e., Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Delhi. The said authority is to act as the common adjudicating authority as per notification dated 24th October, 2011. 5. Keeping in view the facts of the case, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 510 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dgments in support of its contention that it has got a very good case on merits and insistence of the respondents for pre-deposit of duty, fine and penalty will cause undue hardship to the appellant. However, the Commissioner, without considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, has mechanically rejected its prayer. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter requires to be remanded back to the Commissioner for considering the petitioner's aforesaid application for waiver afresh. We, accordingly, allow this petition, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Commissioner for deciding the petitioner's application for waiver afresh, in accordance with the law and for passing a speaking order. Till such order is passed by the Commissioner, the interim protection granted by this Court to the petitioner vide order dated 24.11.2010 and continued thereafter, shall remain operative.
-
2012 (2) TMI 509 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ropriateable to the bare pipes manufactured in Unit No.1. Appeal is disposed off in above manner.” Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we find no error in the Tribunal's view. Admittedly, the first unit of the respondent manufacturing bare pipes was set up long before the cut-off date and in fact went into commercial production also before the said date. The orders on record would further suggest that both the units were, for the purpose of excise registration, treated differently. In that view of the matter, though the unit of the respondent manufacturing coated pipes having been set up after the cut-off dates envisaged in the notification for exemption may not be eligible for exemption, the Tribunal correctly held that the unit manufacturing bare pipes would still be so eligible. No question of law arises. Tax Appeal is dismissed. In view of the order passed in the main Tax Appeal, Civil Application is also dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 508 - SC ORDER
Clandestine Removal of Goods – Failure to Bring Evidences - The challenge to the orders essentially related to absence of cogent evidence in support of the charge against the appellants relating to clandestine removal of the goods, failure on the part of the Department to adduce satisfactory evidence in support of such charge and the findings having been arrived at by the authority in the absence of evidence in support.
-
2012 (2) TMI 506 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... g authority. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. After listening to the argument, we are of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore after granting stay, we take up the appeal for consideration. 6. We find that this Tribunal in the case of Kinetic Engg and Ors. (supra) considered an identical issue and held that, where an incentive is provided by the State Government in the form of retention of sales tax by the manufacturer or where such deferred payment of sales tax was discharged by paying the net present value as per the sales tax incentive scheme, such sales tax incentive received under the scheme declared by the State Government cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods cleared for the purpose of levy of Central Excise duty. The said judgment applies squarely to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. The stay application is also disposed of. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 502 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Clearance from DTA to SEZ - exempt goods - whether the assessees were liable to consider, during the material period, their clearances to SEZ developers to be clearances of exempted goods? - Held that: - decision in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2011 (9) TMI 724 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], squarely covers the issue where it was held that the definition of the term “export” under the SEZ Act shall prevail over the definition of term “export” under the Customs Act. Therefore, supplies made to SEZ from DTA units shall be treated as export.supplies made to SEZ are held to be “export” provisions of Rule 6 of CCR does not arise at all - appeal disposed off - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (2) TMI 498 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... /10, the impugned goods were used in the captive power plant; electricity produced from it was entirely used within the factory of the appellant for production of dutiable goods. He fairly states that out of the impugned goods in respect of which credit has been taken was ₹ 36.60 lakhs relate to duty credit in respect of structural and he volunteers to pre-deposit the entire amount. He states that the appellants are eligible for taking credit in respect of other goods used as inputs for producing electricity which is in turn as stated earlier used in the production of dutiable goods in their own factory. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made, we direct the appellants to pre-deposit of an amount of ₹ 36.60 lakhs, within four weeks from today and to report compliance on 08.03.12. Subject to compliance with the above direction, pre-deposit of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 492 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Whether the appellants are entitled for credit to the extent of input/input service used in the production of electricity which was not captively consumed for manufacture of final product or for other purpose within the factory but was sold to other different legal entity out of the factory production of appellants as held by the Adjudicatory Authority - Held that: - We find finding of fact recorded by the Adjudicatory Authority to be prima facie appropriate. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out - Petition dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 488 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m stay is made out. Accordingly, the stay application is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 485 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... e learned counsel has to fall back upon para 11 of the ROM application. In that para, we have not come across any reference to apparent mistake or error in the Final Order passed by this Bench. 2. Apart from the above, it is also on record that a Civil Appeal was filed by the appellant against the Final Order of this Bench and the same stands dismissed. A copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order dated 19-7-2010 in Civil Appeal No. 16245/2010 is available on record. The order reads thus “Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.” 3. The learned counsel fairly submits that the Final Order of this Bench, in its entirety, was challenged before the Apex Court. If that be so, our Final Order stands affirmed by the Apex Court and, therefore, no application for rectification of the alleged mistake in our Final Order can be maintained. 4. In the result, the ‘ROM’ application is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 482 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - whether it was open to the appellant to take credit suo motu of an amount of ₹ 3,63,242/- in their CENVAT account on the ground that they were not liable to pay duty to such extent on their final product by way of reversal of credit? - Held that: - the assessee is not entitled to take credit suo motu of the excess amount paid by them in the absence of any provision in the Central Excise Act or Rules for suo motu taking of credit.
Scope of SCN - Held that: - the original and appellate authorities were proceeding clearly on the basis of the show-cause notice. By mere reason of the fact that these authorities used the expression suo motu, which was not found in the show-cause notice, it cannot be said that they travelled beyond the scope of the SCN.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|
