|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 338 Records
-
2017 (7) TMI 281 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Refund claim - excise duty paid on the inputs consumed by the respondent and exported - Held that: - the lower authorities have missed larger point inasmuch that the Government of India's stated policy is to encourage export and not to export taxes. In the case in hand, both the lower authorities have come to a correct conclusion that there being exports and other documents which are correlating to the refund claim filed by the appellant as duty paid on inputs, we do not find any reason to interfere in such reasoned order passed by the lower authorities - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 280 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine manufacture and removal - the manufactured goods were cleared clandestinely in the guise of trading under the trade invoices on the sole allegation that imported goods did not bear ‘Accentrix’ brand whereas the goods supplied under the Tarde invoices bore such brand name - It is the claim of the appellant that manufactured goods were cleared bearing this brand name whereas the imported goods did not bear such brand name - Held that: - After considering the details of imported goods, the Commissioner upheld the demand in the de-novo proceedings by observing that on comparison of the goods covered by the Bills of Entry as well as trade invoices it emerges that the goods covered by trade invoice were different from the imported goods. He has further recorded that the tax auditor in report ‘3 CD’ has not mentioned anything about the appellant being engaged in the trading of the goods.
The Department has alleged clandestine clearances on the part of the appellant by adopting the modus operandi of selling goods manufactured in the guise of imported / traded goods. Such a charge will need to be supported by tangible evidence regarding the manufacture of such goods in the factory.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 279 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rate of duty applicable on subject goods - P&P medicaments - whether rate of duty should be the rate of duty of the day, when the goods were imported or it should be the rate of duty of the day, when the goods were removed/ destroyed in the factory? - Held that: - In this case, after the manufacture of goods and when their shelf life expired, the appellant was not in a position to clear / remove them even for home consumption. Therefore, the appellant chose to destroy the subject goods. They have paid duty of Central Excise @ leviable on the day of destruction - Once the goods have been allowed to reach the factory premises of the appellant under Notification No.94/96 dated 16.12.96, the significance of the day of reimportation of the goods is not valid for charging the duty. If the appellant removes such goods for home consumption, by taking necessary permission if required, rate of duty would be applicable for the day when the goods are to be removed for home consumption.
The demand of duty would be at the rate as applicable on the day of destruction, when the appellant had chosen to destroy the goods and made the payment of duty to the department.
When there is no dispute on the fact of payment of duty made by the appellant payable on the day of destruction there is no further liability of payment of duty of Central Excise against the appellant - once we have decided that the appellant has rightly paid the duty on the day of destruction of the goods there cannot be any liability of interest as well as liability of penalty against the appellant.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 278 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Suo-moto the re-credit of such amount debited erroneously - due to error in software, debited amount against clearances effecting by following notification No.108/95 - whether the appellant was correct in availing suo motu credit of ₹ 30,02,093/- on the ground that it was debited inadvertently or otherwise? - Held that: - similar issue came up for decision of Tribunal for consideration of the bench in the case of S. Subrahmanyan & Co. [2011 (3) TMI 396 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD)], wherein it was held that the amount paid by mistake cannot be termed as duty - suo motto credit of Cenvat can be allowed if there is no dispute as to availment of Cenvat Credit in the first place i.e. original Cenvat Credit is not contested - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 277 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine clearance of excisable goods - the whole case against the main appellant is based on the certain entries in the records maintained by the transporter - Held that: - It appears that the Revenue placed reliance on sales register of the main appellant. It is also seen that the record seized from the transporter did not show the nature of items transported, weight, rate and freight amount, in any of the entries. Most of the entries even do not have the weight of materials transported. Only in respect of the four entries, where the weights were noted, the Revenue demanded duty stating that the same is not figuring in the appellant’s records. It would appear that a case of short payment was sought to be made on the basis of presumption rather than admissible, cogent evidences.
Revenue has failed to bring out any cogent, credible and corroborative evidence of unaccounted clearance of dutiable items by the main appellant. In our opinion, the case is built up on some entries maintained by the third party without any element of corroboration from any other source - impugned order set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 268 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT credit - inputs removed to 100% EOU - Revenue authorities were of the view that appellant should have reversed Cenvat Credit on the inputs which were removed to 100% EOU - Held that: - similar issue decided in appellant's own case Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - HYDERABAD-I Versus MATRIX LABORATORIES LTD. [2014 (6) TMI 685 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that According to Rule 19(2) of Central Excise Rules, any materials can be cleared without payment of duty by a manufacturer for export. Provisions of Rule 19(2) which provide for clearance of goods without payment of duty irrespective of the fact that they were manufactured by the assessee or otherwise in my opinion would cover the issue in favor of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 244 - SC ORDER
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of the value of clearances - the decision in the case of Parag Fans and Cooling Systems Ltd. Versus Commissioner Customs Central Excise & Service Tax Indore [2014 (10) TMI 875 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that Revenue clearly proves its case establishing total concern, control, nexus and inseparable link between the assessee and its other proprietary concern viz., Parag Industries - Held that: - the decision in the abovementioned case upheld - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (7) TMI 243 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Non compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the CEA, 1944 - Held that: - right of appeal is a statutory right. Considering the reasons given, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the Appellant to contest the matter on merits and more particularly as he has also shown his bona fide by agreeing to deposit 25% of the amount of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 242 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unjust enrichment - Whether the order of Tribunal can be sustained in as much as it has not met with the contentions of the Appellant, no material facts are discussed and has not considered the aspect of presumption as envisaged under Section 12B of the Central Excise Act? - Held that: - The reasons are short to hold that the burden has been discharged by the Assessee. The rates in the commercial invoice and the excise invoice have not been discussed. The difference in the said rates has not been considered in the judgment. Such a decision can not been sustained - matter remanded back to tribunal.
-
2017 (7) TMI 241 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC - CENVAT credit was taken, which was not permissible and after the same was realized in audit, thereafter it was reversed - Held that: - if before utilization, the entry has been reversed it amounts to not taking credit - reliance placed in the case of Steelco Gujarat Ltd. v/s. Union of India [2012 (8) TMI 175 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] wherein the Court observed that if the credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of the goods cleared under N/N. 14/2002 C.E. or N/N. 30/2004 C.E. is reversed before utilization, it would amount to credit not having been taken - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (7) TMI 240 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of order of Settlement Commission - Held that: - the writ appeal is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Settlement Commission, with regard to the outstanding issues, albeit, in accordance with law - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 239 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Section 11B - evidence - unjust enrichment - Held that: - review petition filed by the assessee is dismissed - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
-
2017 (7) TMI 238 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine manufacture and removal - confiscation - redemption fine - penalties u/r 25/26 of CER, 2002 - Held that: - from the identity of the goods it cannot be established that the said goods were cleared without payment of duty by Ravi Raj Processors as the goods did not bear any marking indicating any relationship with Ravi Raj Processors. There is no inculpatory statement of any of the person of the appellant admitting the charge of the department that the goods were supplied by Ravi Raj Processors - Revenue could not establish beyond doubt that the goods seized in the premises of the present appellants were cleared Ravi Raj Processors without payment of duty. In the absence of any such evidence the goods were not liable for confiscation and consequentially no redemption fine and penalty was warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 237 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim of the duty already paid during the disputed period - unjust enrichment - Held that: - in the absence of evidence merely on the basis of credit notes, it cannot be established that incidence of duty paid by the appellants have not been passed on to any other person. In the interest of justice, one opportunity can be given to the appellants to substantiate their claims in respect of unjust enrichment by submitting all other documents, like, parties ledger, balance sheets, etc. to prove that of credit note has been rightly accounted for and the amount of credit notes has been paid to the customers or the credit notes adjusted in the customers ledger and the same is reflecting in the balance sheet - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 236 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Classification of goods - boiler drums - chimney shells - ducts - fired heaters - radiation/convection coils - Held that: - the first appellate authority has recorded finding that the description of the goods states that they are parts of the Boilers. Therefore, I find that they are rightly classified under Chapter Heading 84.02 by the original authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 235 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Intermediate product namely sugar syrup - demand on the ground that N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 is not applicable when the final product is exempted from payment of excise duty - whether sugar syrup made by the appellant for captive use in the manufacture of exempted biscuit is chargeable to central excise duty under sub-heading 17029090? - Held that: - CBEC Circular dated 7.11.1994 relied upon by the lower authorities has been issued in respect of sugar syrup produced in the manufacture of aerated water and ayurvedic medicines. Hence, the same cannot be applied to the sugar syrup being produced for the biscuits without establishing that the two products are identical - the decision in the case of Rishi Beckery vs. CCE Kerala [2015 (4) TMI 893 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - written off part of the value of the inputs - Held that: - as regard the written off input it is established that firstly the goods in respect of which the value was written off was available in the factory. Therefore the reversal of CENVAT Credit was not required - there was no statutory provision for reversal of credit on the inputs which is written off shown in the books of accounts at the material time said provisions was inserted in Rule 3 by sub-rule (5B) only w.e.f. 11.5.2007 vide amendment N/N. 26/2007-CE (NT) dt. 11.5.2007 - the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 359 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] held that CENVAT credit in respect of the written off input service is not required to be reversed.
As regard the physical verification, the appellant have made a categorical submission write from the audit stage to the audit officer and also before the Jurisdictional Departmental Officer that this is related to the shortage of finished goods found during movement between the factory and the depot - as regard the demand related to the physical verification difference the matter is remanded to the original adjudication authority to reconsider this issue.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant and part matter on remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 192 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - product development cost - includibility - Held that: - Revenue proved its case against the appellant. The appellant made attempt to be enriched at the cost of Revenue. For deliberate act of the appellant to exclude the debit note amount from the scope of duty, questionable conduct and oblique motive of the appellant came up and that contributed to its implication to the charge - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (7) TMI 191 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - input services - provider of lift maintenance service - catering service at the guest house of the appellant - house-keeping service in their residential colony - Held that: - The nexus of the production facility to the guest house and residential colony is a question of fact. This needs to be ascertained and can be done only at the level of the original authority - The impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority to enable appellant to be afforded an opportunity to establish that the guest house and residential colony are in some manner connected to the production process and thereby entitled to claim tax paid on input services deployed at the facilities as CENVAT credit - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (7) TMI 190 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT credit - inputs - benefit of reduced penalties - SSI exemption - N/N. 8/03-CE dt.1.3.2003 - Held that: - it was held by the Tribunal in the case of Sridhar Paints Co.P.Ltd. [2005 (11) TMI 143 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], the benefit of CENVAT credit on evidence of payment of duty on inputs is allowable even where goods are removed clandestinely - In the present appeal, the appellant No.1 have produced detailed tables purported to be of their inputs and on that basis calculated the CENVAT credit on their inputs. Admittedly, the said document was not produced before the Commissioner (Appeals). They would also need to produce prescribed documents showing proof of duty paid on inputs in support of their claim - matter on remand.
Reduced penalties - Held that: - no documentary proof or even dates for said payments have been produced - plea for reduced penalty cannot be examined in absence of these documents/details of payments. Appellants are therefore directed to submit documentary proof of payment of duty, interest and penalty paid by them before the Commissioner (Appeals) with clear indication of dates and amounts of payment of each - matter on remand.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
....
|
