|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 222 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 445 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ed as one category. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also noted that Prevention of Food Adulteration Act also treats Margarine, and Shortening as different items. Thus prima facie, Shortening which is an ingredient in baking cannot be treated as a similar edible preparation as margarine which is fit for direct consumption. In this view of the matter, there is no requirement for any pre-deposit. Accordingly, the stay application is allowed. 5. emsp It is seen that this dispute is the subject of many other appeals also. 6. emsp Registry is directed to list all these appeals for early hearing. List of the cases shall be furnished to the Registry by the ld. SDR. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 444 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Adjudication - Natural justice - Adjournment - Multiple dates of hearings - Held that: - the above approach of the Commissioner is not in accordance with the right interpretation of the provisions of Section 33A. Giving choice of three dates for personal hearing in one letter and seeking of adjournment by the appellant by one month, would not amount to the fact as the adjournments have been sought three times. As such, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority’s approach is not in accordance with the principle of natural justice
-
2007 (7) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation (Central Excise) – Department contended that charges for making printing cylinders were includible in the assessable value and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty – Held the contention correct and penalty amount reduced
-
2007 (7) TMI 421 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Right to information - What directions, if any, the Commission can issue in regard to information about dues, inspection etc - The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority - If the public authority does not hold information or the information cannot be accessed by it under Section 2(f) or if the information is non-est, the public authority cannot provide the same under the Act - The definition also makes it clear that the Right to Information includes the right to inspection of work, documents or records or taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records or taking certified samples of material or obtaining information through some electronic device - It is true that it is not the duty of the CPIO to cause an enquiry or undertake an investigation or prepare answers to the questions posed by the appellant It is, however, a matter of concern that the Appellate Authority instead of dealing with the matter properly has mechanically decided the matter without making any proper analysis of the issues involved - The Commission trusts and believes that the 1st Appellate Authority would sincerely discharge his statutory obligations under the Right to Information Act so that the right to information guaranteed to the citizens is facilitated properly - Appeal is disposed of
-
2007 (7) TMI 328 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Limitation - Suppression of fact - whether Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules provided for mentioning of brand name in the classification list? - Held that: - the omission to declare the use of brand name of another person in the classification list cannot lead to application of extended period of time.
-
2007 (7) TMI 327 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Interest and penalty - Whether an assessee during the period of forfeiture of facility for payment of duty on fortnightly basis, is required to pay duty out of the PLA and whether failure on his part to do so would attract interest and penal provisions or not? - Held that: - the provisions of Rule 8(4) are pari materia with Rule 173G(1)(e) and the non-obstantive clause was introduced by insertion of sub-rule 3A in Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, only w.e.f. 31-3-2005, while the period in dispute in the present case is prior to that date - during the period of forfeiture of the facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis, an assessee can discharge duty liability either out of PLA or by utilising Cenvat credit and failure on his part to do so would not attract interest and penalty, and answer the reference in the negative - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2007 (7) TMI 326 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... t to which revenue was entitled, with him and utilizing the same, in stead of allowing the same to come into the State coffer. Section 11AC is applicable only to those cases, where there is evasion of duty intentionally, by fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. It may not be erroneous to say that penalty under Section 11AC is a sort of penal provision and, therefore, the said provision is harsh and stringent. The person, who deliberately evades the duty, is required to pay penalty equivalent to the amount of duty determined as evaded by fraud, collusion etc. 10. We, therefore, accept the submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that under Section 11AC, there is no discretion left with the authority to impose any different quantum of penalty. 11. Consequently, appeal is allowed and we direct that penalty equivalent to duty evaded i.e. Rs. 2,48,089/- shall be imposed upon the respondent-assessee. 12. First Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2007 (7) TMI 325 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appeal by Department - Authorisation - Jurisdiction - Held that: - the issuance of corrigendum can have no effect as the power could only be conferred on the Regional Commissioner of Central Excise who was the adjudicating authority. In the instant case, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Aurangabad) was not adjudicating authority. Even otherwise also he could not have preferred the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 324 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appeal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... hat the parties should not be denied access to justice unless their conduct is such that if will not be possible to condone the delay. In the Instant case, delay is of five months. An explanation is given which amounts to sufficient cause. In the light of that, impugned order is set aside. Delay condoned. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal on merits. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2007 (7) TMI 323 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
Production capacity based duty - Held that:- If the authorities, after declaring particular product as "notified goods", proceeds to fix the annual production capacity of the factory, it has to do so by giving proportionate increase, if during the year under consideration for the purpose of fixation of annual production capacity, the factory was closed for certain period, manufacturer will be able to evade the duty, by taking the production of six months to be the annual production capacity, because factory was closed for six months during the year, taken as standard for the purpose of determination of annual production capacity.
We are afraid, proviso relied upon by learned Counsel for the appellant does not come to the rescue of the appe1lant-assessee. On the contrary, the same supports the department during the process of determination of annual production capacity. The benefit of proviso to sub section (3) and sub-section (4) of Section 3A of the Act, is not available to the appellant herein, if it has enjoyed benefit of payment of excise duty under procedure prescribed by Rule 96-ZP(3).Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.
-
2007 (7) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
Cenvat/Modvat credit - it is evident that the assessee-company was reversing the credits upon which Modvat credit was claimed before the inputs were put into process for production of exempted goods - Held that: - the case of the assessee was squarely covered by circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs No. 231/66/96/ES dated 25-7-1996 wherein the Board had clarified that the credit of the duty paid on the common input is admissible when used in the manufacture of the final product once the said credit on duty paid inputs going into the exempted category of the final product is debited in the RG 23A Part II account before removal of the exempted final product on actual or pro rata basis - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (7) TMI 321 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
Cenvat/Modvat credit - Whether the learned CESTAT is right in holding that the respondent/assessee can avail the Modvat credit on the furnace oil beyond the extent of 10% as prescribed in the Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.)?
Held that:- In the light of notification under Section 112(1) held that no credit is admissible on any duty paid on high speed diesel oil at any time during the period commencing on and from 16-3-1995 and ending with the date the Finance Act, 2000 received assent of the President i.e. on 1-4-2000. Learned Assistant Solicitor General although claimed that high speed diesel oil was used as fuel in the reported case, he is not able to satisfy us that high speed diesel oil referred in Section 112 of Finance Act, 2000 can be equated with furnace diesel oil which is the input with which we are concerned in present appeal and we are unable to agree with him that because it is used as fuel it can be so equated, covered and governed by Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000. The decision relied upon, we are of the view, is not applicable.
Thus the substantial question of law as framed by us stands answered in the affirmative. Hence appeal is dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 320 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Clandestine removal - Proof ... ... ... ... ..... n, whether the appellants could manufacture the clandestine goods are not questions to be gone into. The Learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment in the case of the Commissioner of C. Ex. Chandigarh v. Raj and Sandeep Ltd. 2004 (168) E.L.T. 507 (P and H) to contend what would be substantive question of law that could be formulated. Next reliance is placed in the judgment of the K.I. Pavunny v. Asst. Collr. (Hq.) C. Ex. Collectorate, Cochin, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) to contend that the confessional statement itself cannot be the basis for holding the appellants guilty of the acts committed. It may be seen that those observations were made in the context of the criminal proceedings which was the issue before the Supreme Court. In the instant case, these are the proceedings for adjudication and therefore, the test applied in that case would not apply in these proceedings in the light of that, there is no merit in this appeal. Both Appeals accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 319 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Recovery of dues - Detention of plant and machinery ... ... ... ... ..... Machinery of the petitioner-company could be detained for enforcing the liabilities of the previous owner. It would also be open to the petitioner-company to raise all other pleas before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent no. 3, which has been raised by it before this Court. 7. The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs Pithampur, respondent no. 3 on August 9, 2007. The Assistant Commissioner, shall make an endeavour to conclude entire proceedings within a period of two months from the date the parties make appearance and shall adjudicate upon all the pleas which the petitioner-company raises before him. It shall also be open to the parties to file written arguments before Assistant Commissioner, respondent no. 3. Till the matter is finally decided by respondent no. 3, the interim protection granted by this Court shall continue to operate in favour of the petitioner-company. C.c as per rules.
-
2007 (7) TMI 317 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Reference to High Court - Question of law - Penalty, quantum ... ... ... ... ..... we are not inclined to call for reference to this Court as in our view, there is no referable question much less substantial question of law arises out the order passed by the Tribunal, referred supra. In principal, the Tribunal has upheld the penalty, but has only reduced it to Rs. 25,00,000/- and this has been done in the interest of justice and after taking into account the rules/law applicable thereto. In our view, it does not involve any issue of law as such which is capable of being referred to this court for answer on merits. What is involved in this reference is only a question of fact relating to exercise of discretion by the Tribunal while reducing the quantum of penalty amount which in our opinion is quite substantial. 5. Accordingly and in view of the foregoing discussion, the application seeking reference to this court from the Tribunal under Section 35-H(1) arising out of Tribunal s order quoted supra is found to be devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 316 - HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Reference to High Court - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... the application made by Revenue and direct the Tribunal to refer to this Court following two questions of law by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 35-H(1) ibid - (i) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Textiles and Textile Articles) paid on inputs can be utilized only for payment of Additional Excise Duty (Textiles and Textile Articles) leviable on final products ? (ii) Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that credit of Additional Duty of Excise (Goods of Special Importance), paid on inputs can be utilized only for payment of Additional Excise Duty (Goods of Special Importance) leviable on final products ? 6. Let the statement of case be sent to this Court by the Tribunal within 3 months along with all relevant documents. A copy of this order together with all original papers relating to this case (if there are with the Registry) be remitted to Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to refer the questions as directed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 315 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cenvat/Modvat credit - inputs used in the manufacture of electricity supplied to the residential complexes within the licensed premises - Held that: - The fact that the residential complexes are situated within the licensed premises would not entitle the assessee to avail credit of duty paid on furnace oil used in the manufacture of electricity supplied to the residential complexes. It is necessary to establish that the electricity is used for any purpose connected with or related to the production of final products. In our opinion, supply of electricity to the residential complexes situated within the factory premises are neither connected with or related to the production of the final products - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 314 - HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ petition - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... pproach of the High Court was entirely wrong. All that had been done was that a show cause was issued. After the respondents filed their reply, the notice may have been dropped or if the reply was not satisfactory based on the reply further inquiries could have been made by the appellants. Adjudication proceedings must not be stalled in the manner done by the High Court. 7. Neither in the writ petition it is so pleaded nor it was so argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing that respondent No. 2 The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Commissionerate. Meerut-II, Meerut, lacks jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice (Annexure No. 11) to the petitioners. 8. In this view of the matter and following the above-quoted dicta of the Apex Court, we decline to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the show-cause notice (Annexure No. 11). 9. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.
-
2007 (7) TMI 309 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Taxing provisions - whether levy of 4% ad valorem rate of duty in respect of Clause 2(i) of preparations in the schedule appended to the Medical and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, as amended by Finance Act, 2000, is null and void as affecting Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India?
Whether restricted preparations and spirituous preparations cannot be made applicable to ayurveda drug manufacturers for imposing any restrictions prescribed therein?
Held that:- Ad valorem rate of duty as levied for other medical preparations containing alcohol. In respect of Allopathic medicinal preparations and for similar medicinal preparations containing alcohol, which are not capable of being consumed as ordinary alcoholic beverage, 20% ad valorem duty has been prescribed under the same schedule of the M & TP Act. There are other medicinal preparations for which much more than 4% ad valorem rate of duty has been prescribed and, thus, 4% ad valorem duty, as prescribed vide amended clause 2(i) of Schedule, cannot be held to be arbitrary or excessive.
t the petitioner has failed to highlight any cause of action to entertain the second writ petition and for giving any declaration as sought for. There is nothing on record to suggest that on any particular day, at a particular time, district authorities or the Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District, or any officer empowered under Act, 1937 or Rules, 1984, visited the premises of the petitioner or any other ayurveda drug manufacturer. In these circumstances, and in absence of cause of action, this Court is not deciding the issue as raised in the second writ petition. W.P.s dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 308 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Claim to rebate on surcharge on Excise Duty denied - Held that:- The Notification dated 6/9/2004 had included the definition of Excise Duty only if consonance with the meaning of Excise Duty as was existing on the date Notification was issued, even if Explanation would not have been there the term Duty of Excise in ordinary circumstance would have included the surcharge levied as Education Cess in terms of Section 93 of the Act of 2004.
In view thereof, no hesitation to hold that impugned orders of Central Government as revisional authority and appellate order of Commissioner (Appeals) are patently erroneous and deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed, impugned orders are set aside to the extent the petitioner has been denied the claim to rebate on surcharge on Excise Duty appropriated by Union of India as Education Cess for funding Universalised quality basic education programme but was paid by the petitioner only as Duty of Excise w.e.f. 9-7-2004 to 5-9-2004. There is no contention about eligibility to rebate w.e.f. 6-9-2004.
............
|
