|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 246 Records
-
2007 (4) TMI 774
The Supreme Court of India admitted the appeal in the case. The judges were Justice A.K. Mathur and Justice Dalveer Bhandari. The legal representatives for both the Appellant and the Respondent were present during the hearing.
-
2007 (4) TMI 756
Issues involved: Alleged clandestine removal of goods, confirmation of duty demand, imposition of penalty u/s 173Q read with Section 11AC.
Confirmation of duty demand: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing textured yarn, was visited by Central Excise officers who found discrepancies in entries between the security room register and statutory records. Despite all stocks tallying, discrepancies led to a demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7,18,828 along with interest and a personal penalty of Rs. 7.20 lakhs, which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.
Grounds of challenge: The appellant contested the order on various grounds, including the failure to consider vital points, non-adjustment of debited amount, lack of corroborative evidence for clandestine removal, and reliance on private note books maintained by the watchman without additional proof. The appellant argued that statements and evidence provided by the department were insufficient to prove clandestine removal beyond doubt.
Appellant's submission: The appellant's advocate argued that all entries in the inward register matched their records, indicating no extra raw material for clandestine activities. They emphasized the lack of further investigation by the Revenue to substantiate the allegations, pointing out discrepancies in vehicle capacities and the need for independent corroboration of the watchman's statements.
Revenue's argument: The Revenue defended the confirmation of demand based on the watchman's detailed statement and entries in the inward and outward registers. They contended that the watchman's statement was comprehensive and could have been cross-examined if necessary, supporting their decision to uphold the duty demand.
Judgment: The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's case relied solely on entries in the private register maintained by the security staff, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in cases of clandestine removal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the requirement for concrete proof beyond assumptions or presumptions. Criticizing the lack of further verification from buyers despite available details, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellant.
-
2007 (4) TMI 754
The Supreme Court dismissed the Curative Petition as no case was made out within the parameters set by a previous decision in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388.
-
2007 (4) TMI 740
Issues involved: Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, benefit of Notification No.63/95-CE denied, clarification on goods supplied to Ministry of Defence.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, heard an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 22.49 lakhs, where the applicant had already deposited Rs. 10 lakhs. The issue revolved around the denial of the benefit of Notification No.63/95-CE, which provides exemption for goods manufactured by M/s. Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. and supplied to the Ministry of Defence. The applicant contended that they supplied goods to BEML, which were further used in the manufacture of goods supplied to the Ministry of Defence, supported by invoices and certificates. The Tribunal found the evidence presented sufficient to waive the remaining amount of duty and penalties. However, as certain evidence was not before the lower authorities, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.
-
2007 (4) TMI 723
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the refund claim for service tax paid by the appellants for the period from 17-10-1998 to 30-6-1999, the liability of service users on C & F agents post-16-10-1998 as per Finance Act, 2000, and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Service Tax Rules, 1994.
Refund Claim Issue:
The respondents, manufacturers of Cement and Clinker, filed a refund claim for service tax paid to clearing and forwarding agents from 17-10-1998 to 30-6-1999. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund based on the decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati case, holding that the service users are not liable to pay service tax. The revenue appealed, citing the Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. case, which stated that the amendments in 2003 did not overrule the decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that no service tax liability can be imposed on the recipient of C & F agent services beyond 16-10-1998.
Liability Issue Post-16-10-1998:
The revenue argued that the Ministry's clarification and the amended Service Tax Rules, 1994, made the service receiver liable to pay service tax even after 16-10-1998. However, the Tribunal referred to the CESTAT's Chennai Bench decision, which held that the amended provisions could not create tax liability for clearing and forwarding services post-16-10-1998. The Tribunal concluded that no service tax liability can be imposed on the recipient of C & F agent services beyond 16-10-1998 based on the law as interpreted by the CESTAT's Chennai Bench.
Interpretation of Service Tax Rules, 1994:
The Tribunal analyzed the amendments made in terms of section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000, which made the recipient of clearing and forwarding services liable for service tax from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998. It held that the revenue cannot collect service tax from the recipient for any period beyond 16-10-1998. The Tribunal emphasized that section 117 is procedural and does not alter the substantive provision brought by section 116. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was rejected based on the interpretation provided by the CESTAT's Chennai Bench.
-
2007 (4) TMI 717
Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal without interference, condoning the delay. (2007 (4) TMI 717 - SC)
-
2007 (4) TMI 716
Cenvat credit - failed to maintain separate inventory and accounts for receipt and consumption - Interest u/s 11AB r/w Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, demanded - Manufacture of both dutiable final products and exempted goods - whether M/s. MRPL the appellant has to pay an amount equal to 10% of the total price of the exempted goods viz., SKO and LPG charged by them at the time of clearance from the factory - HELD THAT:- This bench in a large number of cases has followed the ratio of the decision in the case of Chandrapur Magnet Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE [1995 (12) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] to hold that even when common inputs are used for exempted and dutiable goods and if the appellant is not in a position to maintain separate accounts if he reverses the credit attributable to the inputs contained in exempted products, then there is no requirement of payment of 8/ 10% on the value of the exempted goods.
Thus, we allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief.
-
2007 (4) TMI 709
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD upheld the order setting aside confiscation of excess goods not entered in the RG-1 register due to lack of evidence of clandestine removal. The appeal by Revenue was rejected as no intention to evade duty was found. Penalty of Rs. 2,000 was imposed for non-entry of goods in statutory records.
-
2007 (4) TMI 707
Issues involved: Credit of input for manufacture of Sulphuric Acid supplied under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA involved a case where the appellants took credit of input for the manufacture of Sulphuric Acid, some of which was supplied under Chapter X procedure without duty payment. The Department demanded 8% of the value of the Sulphuric Acid supplied under Chapter X procedure due to the appellants not maintaining a separate account. The appellant's advocate cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case, M/s. Central Cables Ltd. vs. CCE, where it was held that credit is not deniable when final goods are supplied under Chapter X procedure, following the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise. As the Department had accepted the Tribunal's decision in the case of Central Cables Ltd. and did not file further appeal, the Tribunal in this case set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the credit is not deniable for Sulphuric Acid supplied duty-free under Chapter X procedure.
The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, and the decision was dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2007 (4) TMI 706
Issues involved: Determination of annual capacity of production for Central Excise duty payment, provisional capacity determination, imposition of penalty, finalization of capacity determination, entitlement to abatement of duty.
Determination of annual capacity of production: The appellants, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Ingots, were required to pay Central Excise duty based on their annual production capacity u/s 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner provisionally determined their capacity as 9,600 MTs, which was challenged by the appellants due to inadequate power supply affecting their production capacity. The matter was referred back by the Bombay High Court for re-determination considering the power supply issue. However, the Commissioner held that he did not have the power to re-determine the capacity while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, directing no coercive action until a final order was passed.
Imposition of penalty: The Additional Commissioner demanded duty from the appellants based on the provisional capacity determination, along with interest and penalty for non-payment within the prescribed time limit. This demand and penalty were confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Finalization of capacity determination: The appellants argued that until the capacity was finally determined, no duty payment or penalty imposition should occur. They highlighted that the show cause notices did not refer to subsequent orders of the Commissioner, and the capacity determination remained pending even after the High Court's direction. They requested finalization of the capacity determination before any duty demand or penalty imposition.
Entitlement to abatement of duty: The appellants also raised concerns about their entitlement to abatement of duty for the period when their factory was closed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledged that the capacity determination was provisional and pending finalization, making the confirmation of duty demand premature. They set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order, emphasizing the need for the final determination of annual production capacity before adjudicating any demands. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
-
2007 (4) TMI 702
Valuation - includibility - cost of advertisement/publicity expenses borne by the dealers and franchisee shops of M/s Kinetic and M/s Raymond on account of advertisement through press and other means and supply of calendar etc. - amendment to section 4 of CEA - Held that: - advertisement cost and pre-delivery inspection and after sales service charges which are sharable between the manufacturer and the dealer cannot be included in the assessable value even after 01.04.2000 as the advertisement promoted the sale of the dealers also and therefore his expenses cannot be included in the expenses of the manufacturer - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (4) TMI 699
Penalty u/s 76 - payment of tax before issuance of SCN - Invocation of section 80 - Held that: - Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly invoked the provisions of section 80, as in this case it is on record that the respondent was not aware of the levy of service tax on services rendered by him - penalty not warranted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (4) TMI 696
Issues involved: Appeal arising from dismissal under proviso to Section 35F of the CE Act for non-compliance of Interim Order regarding delayed payment of Service Tax.
Comprehensive details:
(1) Delayed payment of Service Tax: The appellants contended that the delay in payment was due to the Revenue not providing the account number on time. They were filing monthly statements and crediting the amounts under the appropriate head to the Office of the Principal Chief Controller of Accounts. The delay in transferring the funds to the Central Board of Excise and Customs was attributed to inter-departmental delays. The Tribunal had previously ruled that demands cannot be raised for such delays (Final Order No. 04/2003 -NB(A) dated 02.06.2003).
(2) Appeal and Remand: The learned Counsel referred to the previous order and requested a remand of the matter to the original authority to apply the same judgment.
(3) Departmental View: The learned JDR reiterated the departmental view.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the issue had already been decided by the Hon'ble President in a previous Final Order. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F was deemed unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration within four months, applying the Tribunal's previous ruling. The appeal was allowed by way of remand.
-
2007 (4) TMI 692
Issues involved: Refund claimed by the appellant, unjust enrichment.
Refund Claimed by the Appellant: The appellant claimed a refund related to the demand of duty on dies and moulds manufactured for M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd. The dies and moulds were not physically cleared but retained in the appellant's factory for further use. The assessable value of the motor vehicle parts manufactured included the amortized cost of the dies and moulds. The invoices showed that the amount charged from M/s Ashok Leyland did not include the cost of the dies and moulds separately, which were added to the assessable value for duty payment. The appellant argued that since the dies and moulds were never cleared or sold to M/s Ashok Leyland, the duty payment refund should not be considered unjust enrichment.
Decision: The Tribunal found the appellant's submissions convincing but required verification by the original adjudicating authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication based on the appellant's submissions.
Conclusion: The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further review and clarification by the Assistant Commissioner.
-
2007 (4) TMI 688
Issues involved: Application for directions to disclose property details and restrain alienation during legal proceedings.
Summary:
The applicants filed an application seeking directions for the opponents to disclose all movable and immovable properties owned by them and to declare any properties transferred or alienated. The opponents were also requested not to dispose of any properties during the legal proceedings. The court noted the substantial duty/penalty liability of the opponents and their actions of notifying plant and machinery for sale. The opponents admitted the discontinuation of manufacturing activities and highlighted substantial reserves in their balance sheet. Considering the circumstances and the opponents' statements, the court decided to restrain the opponents from alienating any properties without permission during the proceedings. The application was partly successful, and the opponents were prohibited from transferring any properties without the court's or Commissioner's approval. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2007 (4) TMI 686
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, but stated that the assessee would be entitled to a refund if applicable. Delay was condoned.
-
2007 (4) TMI 684
Whether The Jammu and Kashmir Distillery Rules 1946 does not have the statutory backing?
Whether Rule is in excess of the rule making power in Section 25 of the Act and suffers from excessive delegation?
Whether Rule seeks to get breweries to pay for the salaries and costs of the government officials involved in revenue collection and it is manifestly unjust and arbitrary?
-
2007 (4) TMI 683
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2007 (4) TMI 683 - SC. Judges were S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy.
-
2007 (4) TMI 680
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the excisability and classification of Dry Mix and Ready Mix Concrete. The Tribunal referred to a previous order stating that Ready Mix Concrete was not excisable before March 1, 1997. As the dispute in this case is before that date, the Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed, allowing the appeals.
-
2007 (4) TMI 675
Issues involved: Authorization under Section 35B(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 57CC.
Authorization under Section 35B(2): The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner(Appeals). The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the authorization under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excise Act, arguing that the committee constituted for reviewing the appeal was not valid as it was signed by one Commissioner instead of two. The respondent contended that one individual cannot form a committee. However, the department argued that the Commissioner holding additional charge was competent to review the appeal in dual capacity. The Tribunal held that the Committee was validly constituted and the appeal was rightly reviewed, overruling the preliminary objection.
Demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 57CC: The issue in the present appeal was regarding the demand of 8% of the value of exempted goods under Rule 57CC where credit is availed on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The adjudicating authority rejected the case of the assessee for not maintaining prescribed registers or indicating the use of inputs. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) accepted the maintenance of separate accounts based on the stock register annexed to the memorandum of appeal. The Commissioner relied on a Circular clarifying options for SSI units availing full exemption, stating that the demand of 8% was not warranted. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for proper appraisal of records and specific findings on the issues raised by both parties, allowing the appeal in remand to keep all issues open for further adjudication.
........
|
9911796707
