|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 222 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 709 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... re is any subsequent even, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal is right in its conclusion that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not applicable in the instant case. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 699 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... upreme Court did not decide, whether the provision was confiscatory and ultra vires and that it had proceeded on the concession made by the State, cannot be extended to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of CCE, Delhi-IV v. llpea Paramount Pvt. Ltd. (supra), was in no way affected by the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. BHEL (supra). 8. For the foregoing reasons, the reduction in the penalty, as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals), was not warranted. The impugned order, to the extent that it reduces the penalty of ₹ 1,37,560/- imposed on the respondent by the adjudicating authority, to ₹ 25,000/-, is hereby set aside and the penalty, as imposed by the adjudicating authority, stands restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 20-7-2007)
-
2007 (7) TMI 679 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
100% EOU - benefit of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act - Held that: - the ld. Commissioner demanded a higher amount of duty even after accepting the assessee's worksheet wherein an amount of ₹ 9,00,760.63 was mentioned as outstanding duty. No amount of duty over and above the amount stated in the assessee's worksheet should have been demanded. This error can be corrected by the Commissioner.
A composite penalty was imposed under different penal provisions which worked on different principles - Considerations relevant to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC are different from those relevant to imposition of one under Rule 173Q. Ld. Commissioner lost sight of this distinction. This error also can be corrected by him.
Matter remanded for the limited purpose of re-quantification of the demand of duty on the basis of the assessee's worksheet - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2007 (7) TMI 676 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... interfere in this matter. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, we keep the question of law open.
-
2007 (7) TMI 653 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Jurisdiction - proper officer - power of Assistant Commissioner to file appeal - Held that: - The Assistant Commissioner was authorized by the Commissioner to file the appeal and therefore, it was not necessary that the Original Authority who passed the order should have filed the appeal.
-
2007 (7) TMI 652 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cant. To my mind, this approach is contrary to the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mrs. Katiji (cited supra). Since the issue involved in this case is of personal penalty imposed on the appellant, the Commissioner (Appeals) could have condoned the delay and heard the appeal on merits. Since the appeal has been dismissed only on the time bar, I am unable to go into the merits of the case As such, the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is condoned and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue and pass a fresh order on merit. He shall pass a fresh order within 4 weeks from receipt of this order. Further, I order that the applicant should pay ₹ 5000/- as costs and produce proof of the same before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who, on production of such proof, shall hear and dispose the appeal on merits. Dictated and pronounced in Court
-
2007 (7) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... discharged the entire duty liability before the issuance of the show cause notice and are also not disputing the same today before me. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty and interest imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority on the finding that the respondent had paid the entire amount of duty before the issuance of the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the respondents had discharged the entire amount of duty liability before the issuance of the show cause notice. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondents by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd., as reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.). 4. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order is correct to the extent that it sets aside the interest and penalty imposed on the respondent and the impugned order does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 633 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Whether an assessee can avail Modvat credit on capital goods namely M.S. Angles, M.S. Sheets, Plates, Channels, Pipes and Tubes under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 although these goods are not used in relation to the manufacture of the final products?
-
2007 (7) TMI 630 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ion of the Customs Act. On the other hand, we find that the raw materials were admittedly issued for manufacture and a portion of the finished goods have been held to be rejects and waste and they were cleared in the domestic market as per the permission granted by the Development Commissioner. Under these circumstances, no case of diversion or use of the raw materials procured duty free for a purpose other than intended purpose, has been made out. Therefore, no valid grounds have been adduced to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner in so far as non-demand of duty on the raw materials and not taking the consequential penal action. 6. In identical circumstances, appeal by the Department as well as appeal by the party were dismissed by the Tribunal in the case of Mahalakshmi Exports in Order No. A 595 & 596/WZB/Ahd/07, dt.14.3.07. 7. In the light of the above, the appeals by the Department as well as appeal by M/s Goyal Synthetics and the Director are dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 625 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... condoned. Heard. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 621 - SC ORDER
Demand - Show cause notice - the decision in the case of CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI [2006 (11) TMI 486 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] contested - Held that: - delay condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 594 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... nd from the records that the appellants were carrying on the activity of procuring orders from their clients for the principal. They were acting as an agent only. They were not carrying on the activity of clearing and forwarding of the goods, although there was a mention about it in the agreement with their principal as noted in para 11 of the impugned order. The plea of the appellant is that they received only commission for procuring or booking orders for their customers and did not carry out the activity of clearing and forwarding agent . This plea is required to be accepted in terms of the cited judgements (1)Oral. Of Larson and Toubro Ltd. v. CCE 2006 4 VST 72 (CESTAT-New Delhi) 2006 TIOL 814 (Delhi) and CCE, Allahabad v. Chandan Chemicals 2007 8 VST 786 (CESTAT-New Delhi) 2007 80 RLT 916 and large number of other judgments filed by the learned counsel. In view of this position, the impugned order is not legal and proper and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal.
-
2007 (7) TMI 579 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hapter VI. If a narrow view is taken, the assessee may be left without any remedy to bring the appeal before the CSTAA merely because the assessment order passed by the primary authority was tested in revision. It would be reasonable and proper to adopt the view that the aggrieved dealer 39 s right of appeal under the pre-amended section 20(1) of the CST Act was available against the original assessment order passed by primary authority as well as the order passed in revision by the Commissioner under section 62(1) of the MPCT Act. We, therefore, hold that the original appeal filed under the preamended provisions was maintainable but it stood transferred to the Madhya Pradesh Tribunal in view of the amended section 25(2) of the CST Act. This authority accordingly transmitted the appeal papers vide its order dated March 2, 2006. We find no valid ground to disturb that order. In the result, the application is dismissed but subject to the observations made in paragraph 9 supra.
-
2007 (7) TMI 574 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... eciding on the Stay Petition and without waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, he could not have proceeded to decide the appeal on merit. In view of the specific provision of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, it was incumbent upon the lower Appellate Authority either to ensure that the demanded duty and penalty are deposited or he should have waived the whole or part of it before taking up the appeal for decision on merit. As that has not been done, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower Appellate Authority with the direction that he should first decide the Stay Petition pending with him before taking up the appeal for decision on merit. Both the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. In view of the huge amount of revenue involved, the lower Appellate Authority is directed to decide the matter within a period of forty-five days from the date of receipt of this Order. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 571 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Cenvat/Modvat on inputs - Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 1,31,978/- and Rs. 26,776/- along with interest vide the impugned OIOs dt. 27-7-2005 and 23-9-2005. 4. emsp It is seen that remission has been granted in respect of duty payable on the time expired medicaments, which are not marketable. The issue involved is whether the Cenvat credit relating to inputs which have gone into the medicaments destroyed should be recovered from the appellants as condition for granting such remission. CBEC vide circular dt. 7-8-2002 held that such disallowance of credit is not warranted and which instruction was modified by the Board rsquo s subsequent instruction dt. 1-10-2004. The Commissioner taking note of the fact that the demand relates to the period prior to 1-10-2004 while the CBEC rsquo s circular dt. 7-8-2002 was in force, allowed the appeals. No valid grounds have been adduced to upset the findings and reasonings adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. emsp Appeals by the Department are dismissed. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 570 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ked that the matter was not listed. On enquiry with the registry, several factors are being put forth for the said lapse. Firstly, this Bench was formed at that time and some cases were not received from the Zonal Bench at Mumbai and secondly as per the previous practice the total number of cases listed not exceeding 50, as such, this appeal might not have been listed. 4. emsp As it stands, the appeal was decided by this Bench on merits in absence of the appellant and their counsel. Though it was decided on merits, it shall be treated as an ex parte order. Further, we are convinced that the appellants have not received the notice for the date of hearing on 20-2-2007 on which date this appeal was heard and decided. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants are to be provided an opportunity to present their case. As such, the appeal is restored to file by recalling the earlier order dated 20-2-2007. The application is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 569 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Appeal - Restoration of - Ex parte order ... ... ... ... ..... ked that the matter was not listed. On enquiry with the registry, several factors are being put forth for the said lapse. Firstly, this Bench was formed at that time and some cases were not received from the Zonal Bench at Mumbai and secondly as per the previous practice the total number of cases listed not exceeding 50, as such, this appeal might not have been listed. 4. emsp As it stands, the appeal was decided by this Bench on merits in absence of the appellant and their counsel. Though it was decided on merits, it shall be treated as an ex parte order. Further, we are convinced that the appellants have not received the notice for the date of hearing on 20-2-2007 on which date this appeal was heard and decided. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants are to be provided an opportunity to present their case. As such, the appeal is restored to file by recalling the earlier order dated 20-2-2007. The application is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 568 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... d 27-1-1-96 stating that they will be availing benefit of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-3-93. The department had the knowledge that appellant was a new manufacturing unit in place of M/s. Emerald Color Industries. The department should have inquired into whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of notification No. 1/93, dated 27-3-93 or not. If not the SCN had to be given within the prescribed time of 6 months from the relevant date of filing classification list. rdquo 4. emsp The revenue has not disputed the above factual position in their memo of appeal. The respondent started availing the benefit of Notification after filing the classification list. As such, they cannot be held to be guilty of any suppression or mis-statement on their part with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellate authority has rightly held that demand should be barred by limitation. 5. emsp In view of the above, we reject the appeal filed by the revenue. (Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 565 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ischarge (pertaining to the erstwhile owner of the property). Whether the proviso to Section 11 of the CEA has overriding effect on the covenant in the sale deed and terms and conditions is a debtable point. In these circumstances, it is felt expedient to safeguard the interest of both the parties, the appellants need to be put to certain terms. The appellants shall give a Bank Guarantee to the tune of Rs. 8.0 lakhs (rupees eight lakhs only) in favour of the Government within a period of eight weeks and also an undertaking under a separate bond to the effect that it will not create any third party encumbrance on the property in question pending disposal of the appeal. Subject to compliance of these terms, there shall not be recovery proceedings from the Department side and attachment of the property. Stay is granted accordingly. The stay application is disposed of on the above terms. Compliance to be reported on 21st September 2007. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 564 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Penalty on Director - Clandestine removal - Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... emsp The contention of the ld. DR is that though the penalty was set aside on the main unit basing on the aforesaid decisions, penalty ought not to have been set aside on the Director and more so, no reasons have been assigned. This is a case of alleged clandestine removal. Therefore knowledge of the same is attributed to its Director and he was penalized of Rs. 10,000/-. 5. emsp I am of the view that when the penalty is not imposable on the main unit, whatever may be the grounds, the Director cannot be met with personal penalty. Even otherwise, the Director rsquo s knowledge cannot be attributed directly to such removals as there will be many other employees in the company who deal with clearances. Further, I find no active role of Director in clandestine removal of goods. Hence, this objection is set aside. 6. emsp In view of the first objection, the name of the Director be shown as 2nd appellant in the cause title. ROM is partly allowed. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
........
|
