|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 268 Records
-
2014 (2) TMI 1416 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Modavt credit - duty paid on the capital goods used for the manufacture of final product viz. Sliver falling under heading 52.02 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - same was specifically excluded from the purview of capital goods under erstwhile Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, prior to 21-10-1994 - HELD THAT:- The question has been answered against the Revenue in COMMISSIONER VERSUS THURAN SPINNING MILLS [2013 (12) TMI 1608 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], following the decision of this Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM VERSUS SINGARAVELAR SPINNING MILLS (P) LTD. [2009 (2) TMI 195 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS].
The question is answered against the Revenue - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1358 - SC ORDER
Application for impleadment in respect of State of Assam - HELD THAT:- The application is allowed.
Issue notice to the newly added parties, returnable on 28th March, 2014.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1336 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - duty paid under protest - rejection on the ground of time limitation and unjust enrichment - Held that:- Since the payment was under protest, question of time-bar would not arise.
Unjust Enrichment - the claim has been rejected for non-production of evidences in respect of the appellant's claim that they have not passed on the duty incidence to anybody else - Held that:- The matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority to consider the claim of the appellant that the claim is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1328 - CESTAT DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Held that: - The stay applications were heard after protracted strategies seeking adjournment and an elaborate order was passed granting waiver and stay, subject to deposits as specified. The order dated 27.11.2013 has not been complied with nor this order varied by a superior Court - appeals are rejected for failure of pre-deposit.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1325 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - shortage of stock - Held that: - apart from shortages, there is no other evidence on record corroborating the allegation of removal of either the raw material or the final product. In such a case, the appellate authority has rightly held that clandestine activities cannot be proved against the assessee - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1321 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - goods manufactured out of common inputs without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty - suppression of facts - Time limitation - Circular dated 30-4-1975 - Held that: - when the respondent-assessee had been furnishing regular returns on monthly basis disclosing therein about clearing goods manufactured out of common inputs without payment of duty as well as on payment of duty, then, there appears to be no suppression of facts with an intention to evade payment of duty - the CESTAT was correct in holding that the demands beyond the normal period of limitation are time-barred and therefore, correctly set aside the submission of the Revenue.
In so far as the subsequent period is concerned, in our view, the CESTAT, after accepting the contention of the respondent-assessee, accepted the offer of the respondent-assessee that they would reverse the entire credit on the common inputs - The assessee, having accepted before the Tribunal to reverse the Cenvat credit as recorded by the Tribunal as regards reversal of the amount involved under such a situation, the High Court held that when the matter has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to redetermine the credit in accordance with law there was no substantial question of law and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1315 - SC ORDER
Refund/rebate of duty - the decision in the case of Kanha International Versus Union of India [2013 (7) TMI 1089 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that The petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate the question/issue which has been settled/adjudicated earlier, on making representations one after another - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1304 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Recovery of outstanding dues of the Government of India - Circular dated 1st January, 2013 issued by the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi - Held that: - the petitioner having lost before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court having not granted stay pending the appeal, necessary legal consequences would be recovery of the outstanding dues. The power can legitimately be exercised irrespective of the impugned circular - it is incorrect to hold the circular to be arbitrary or discriminatory or violative of any fundamental or statutory right of the petitioner or any other party - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1303 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of capital goods - Held that: - the issue is no more res integra and stands settled by various decisions of High Courts that welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance are admissible Cenvatable goods - reliance placed in the case of AMBUJA CEMENTS EASTERN LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR [2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT] - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1294 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - whether the various iron and steel items used by the respondents in their factory for fabrication of capital goods are cenvatable or not? - Held that: - If the items can be used in the fabrication of capital goods, the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on various iron and steel items would be available to them in terms of the law declared by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1290 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA
Search - Seizure of the documents and records - Mis-declaration - Evasion of the duty - Interest - Penalty - time limitation - Held that: - noticee number 1 while admitting and accepting their duty liability against such clandestine removals of finished goods, noticee number 1 deposited ₹ 30 lakhs through e-payment, they deliberately suppressed material facts relating to clandestine removal of finished goods without accountal and without payment of duty and maintained details relating to such clandestine removals in their private records with intent to evade duty.
That noticee number 1 (applicant) by way of their deliberate acts or omission appears to have wilfully perpetuated fraud and suppressed material facts to gain unlawful monetary benefits by evading Central Excise duty payable to the Government - Hence extended period of limitation appears to be invocable as noticee number 1 (the applicant) had wilfully suppressed the actual quantity of finished excisable goods cleared by them clandestinely in their books of account with intent to evade payment of duty of excise leviable thereon.
The Charge against the co-applicant - At para 10.2 of the show cause notice is that he “definitely’ had prior knowledge relating to such evasion of Central Excise duty by way of clandestine removals, etc., by ‘notice No. 1‘ and that such unlawful act would have never taken place without his consent. .. therefore, appears to have had knowledge or reason to believe that the goods thus removed in contravention of the provisions of law were liable for confiscation…. therefore, appears to have rendered himself liable for penalty in terms of Rule 26 of the said Central Excise Rules, 2002.” The DGCEI submissions on the co-applicant’s application for settlement confirm this allegation.
We agree with the finding that there was clandestine evasion of excise duty and that, therefore, full immunity from penalty cannot be granted to the applicant (Nos. 1 and 2) and also that immunity from prosecution granted to them should be subject to terms and conditions imposed regarding payment of duty, penalty and interest.
The rest of the findings of the learned Member are in consonance with our view that there was clandestine clearance and evasion of duty by the applicant-company, where, the co-applicant has admitted that he looked after the business. Accordingly, we hold that he (the co-applicant) does not deserve full immunity from penalty.
The allegation in the SCN against Shri Prabhu Narayan Singh, Director, is that he had prior knowledge relating to evasion of Excise Duty and such unlawful acts would never have taken place without his consent, these facts are also admitted by him in his voluntary statement. It was, therefore, proposed to impose a penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which relates to “any person who acquires possession of, or is in any way concerned in transporting, removing, depositing, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner deals with, any excisable goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under the Act or these rules, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding the duty on such goods or two thousand rupees, whichever is greater - Decided against the assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1281 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Attachment of property - recovery of Government dues - Sec. 142 (1)( c) (ii) of the Customs Act 1962 read with Rule 4 - Held that: - the issue involved in the current appeal before us is identical to the issue which was decided by the majority order in the case of of Rajabali Ismail Rajbara vs. CCE., Surat [2014 (3) TMI 483 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD (LB)] - Since the issue is covered by a majority decision, and nothing is brought to our notice as to the said order is over turned by higher judicial forum, following the same we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1256 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Appeals not traceable with the registry - Held that:- We find that the files were not traceable and subsequently are reconstructed and transferred from Mumbai Bench and received on 27.01.2014 by this bench. Since the matter is of 1995, we allow the application filed by the Revenue and direct the registry to list the matter for disposal on 17.04.2014
-
2014 (2) TMI 1250 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Permission to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal - Held that:- The law has already been declared by a Division Bench of Madras High Court exactly on similar circumstance as per the decision in Metal Weld Electrodes v. CESTAT, Chennai (2013 (11) TMI 240 - MADRAS HIGH COURT), that statutory remedy by way of appeal is maintainable. It is stated by the learned Standing Counsel that, similar decision has been taken by this Court as well.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the light of the law as aforesaid, the petitioner may be permitted to pursue the statutory remedy by way of appeal.-
-
2014 (2) TMI 1233 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Denial of principles of natural justice - Utilization of procured raw materials and bogus exports shown with respect to goods shown to have been made out of non duty paid raw materials - delaying of adjudication proceedings - stay proceeding - Held that:- It is observed from the case records that Advocate of the appellant vide letter dated 19/4/2006 asked for copies of certain documents from DGCEI before filing reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 31/1/2006. Though a copy of this letter was marked to Adjudicating Authority but the relied upon document copies were never asked from the adjudicating authorityfor more than seven years appellant slept and did not care to remind the adjudicating authority that certain documents are required and that that appellant has some duty towards filing of a written reply to the Show Cause Notice. Appellant also did not bother to intimate the field formations or the Adjudicating Authority regarding change in address for communication. It appears that appellant has indulged in delaying of adjudication proceedings
As main appellant M/s Waghbakriwala Rayons is required to be put to certain conditions in order to ensure that appellant co-operate with the Adjudication proceedings. It is accordingly ordered that main appellant shall deposit an amount of ₹ 20 lacs (Rupees twenty lacs only) within a period of 8 weeks and report compliance to the Adjudicating Authority. On verification of the payment of above deposit, Adjudicating Authority will decide the case afresh in denovo adjudicating, after giving all the relied upon documents to the appellants and after extending them opportunity of personal hearing. It is clarified that this Bench has not expressed any opinion on merits and has kept all the issues open.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1204 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Rejection of appeal - Bar of limitation - date of delivery of order in original - Held that:- Report from Asstt Commnr,indicates that all possible efforts were made to trace documentary proof in respect of service of OIO by all the alternative means provided under section 37 C of Central Excise Act 1944, but the same is not traceable. On such categorical report, the first appellate authority, in my considered view should have held with the alternative method of service has provided under sec. 37 C were not exhausted. - there is nothing on record to show that the revenue has exhausted all the modes of serving of OIO on the appellant before embarking on pasting of the OIO on the premises of the appellant. In my view, division bench in the case of M/s Trans Global Agencies Pvt Ltd., vs CCE, Daman, [2009 (3) TMI 722 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] which is of would cover the issue directly in favour of the appellant. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1203 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Denial of CENVAT Credit - credit of the CVD and used it for payment of duty on the repaired transformers cleared from the appellant’s factory - Held that:- Admittedly, the duty was paid by the appellant on the full value of the transformer including the value of the damaged parts. It is not the case of the Revenue that parts were imported separately and duty was paid on the separate parts. It is a complete transformer, which was imported on payment of duty and it is the complete transformer which was subsequently converted into a new transformer, which was cleared on payment of duty. As per the provisions of Rule 3 (1) (vi) of CENVAT Rules 2001, an assessee is entitled to take the CENVAT credit of the additional duty on customs leviable on the goods imported and paid under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Bill of Entry filed by the appellant clearly reveals the payment of CVD on the complete transformer. Merely because on account of under-going through sea-voyage from India to Holland and back, some of the parts might have got damaged requiring re-attaching, re-conditioning/repair cannot be made a ground for denial of the duty paid on the said parts. Even at the cost of repetition, I would like to observe that it is not the parts, which were imported by the appellant but the complete transform and at the time of payment of CVD on the complete transformer, including the damaged parts, the customs authorities did not object to payment of duty on the damaged parts. As such, I find no justification for denial of the credit. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1192 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty under Rule 27 - Delay in making duty payment - Held that:- Tribunal has allowed the entire appeal of the petitioner and the penalty imposed under Rule 25 has been quashed. However, admittedly, as there was delay in deposit of the duty, the general penalty clause under Rule 27 is enforced and a general penalty of ₹ 2,000/- was imposed for each default. In doing so, no error has been committed by the Tribunal which warrants interference - Neither, any prejudice caused was demonstrated or established before us nor is any illegality pointed in the matter of imposing general penalty under Rule 27. Admittedly, the appellant had committed a delay in deposit of the duty and if the duty was not deposited within the stipulated period, the general penalty under Rule 27 could be imposed and in doing so, as no illegality is committed and no breach of statutory provision is established, that being so, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1191 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Section 35G - Held that:- Once the appellant in MACE 6/2006 themselves admitted the position that no appeal under Section 35G was maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the matter and when this order dated 23-8-2006 passed in MACE No. 6/2006 above is still in existence, in ignorance of or contrary to the same, this Court cannot now take cognizance of the matter and hear this appeal on the ground that some substantial question of law is involved. The order passed on 23-8-2006 as indicated herein above operates as Res judicata so far as hearing of this appeal is concerned. That being so, till the order passed on 23-8-2006 stands and is not withdrawn, reviewed/recalled or set aside in a proper proceedings, no indulgence in this appeal can be made by this Court now.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Tribunal's order - Whether the CESTAT is right in dismissing the appeal and vacating the mandatory penalties imposed when there is a plethora of conflicting decision on the same issue by various higher appellate forums/authorities - Held that:- Respondent has to pay Central Excise Duty in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, but they paid duty only on 5-11-1997. Even though, the respondent has paid duty on 5-11-1997 and that too prior to issuance of show cause notice, dated 7-9-1998, the respondent cannot absolve its liability from paying penalty under the Section mentioned - CESTAT without properly considering the said provision has simply found that since before the issuance of show cause notice the respondent has paid Central Excise Duty, it need not pay penalty. Since the said Section deals with short levy or short payment or erroneous refund and non-payment, this Court is of the view that the approach made by the CESTAT with regard to penalty is totally erroneous and therefore, the order passed by the CESTAT is liable to be set aside and the substantial question of law settled in the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is having substance. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
........
|
