|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (12) TMI 529
Judgment: Supreme Court of India dismissed the Civil Appeal with no costs. (Citation: 2007 (12) TMI 529 - SC Order)
-
2007 (12) TMI 514
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the dropping of duty demand proposals by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore, against two parties, SVA Steel Re-rolling Mills Limited (SVA) and Srinivasa Steel Rolling Mills (SSRM), and the lack of proper evidence and grounds in the Revenue appeal.
Issue 1: Lack of Proper Explanation of Allegations in Show Cause Notice
The Tribunal found that the statement of facts did not provide a clear account of the impugned transactions and adjudication process. The appeal memorandum lacked essential details to understand the case properly. Allegations included receiving steel ingots in excess, manufacturing and clearing products clandestinely, and using invoices from fictitious trading firms. However, it was not explained how the department intended to establish the case in the Show Cause Notice.
Issue 2: Insufficient Evidence and Lack of Clarity in Adjudication
The Tribunal noted that the evidence presented, including statements from individuals, was not clearly linked to the alleged offending transactions. The events mentioned in the evidence were not adequately explained in relation to the allegations. The identities of persons, firms, and documents referenced were not clarified. The treatment of each piece of evidence by the adjudicating authority was not detailed in the appeal.
Issue 3: Inadequate Quantification of Demand and Lack of Supporting Evidence
The statement of facts detailed the conclusions drawn from the evidence, including tables showing receipt of ingots and quantities of products manufactured without duty payment. However, the sources of these figures were not provided, and the basis for quantifying the alleged duty evasion was not adequately explained. The Commissioner found discrepancies in the quantification of demand and lack of evidence from suppliers and transporters.
Issue 4: Submissions by Counsel for the Noticees
The submissions made by the Counsel for the noticees during the personal hearing highlighted various discrepancies in the demand raised in the Show Cause Notice. The Counsel argued that the allegations were based on presumptions and contradictions, urging for the proceedings to be dropped due to lack of substantial evidence. The Commissioner's decision to drop the proposals was based on the inadequacy of evidence and lack of proper enquiry with suppliers and transporters.
Issue 5: Lack of Clear Reasoning in Commissioner's Decision
The Tribunal found it challenging to understand the reasoning behind the Commissioner's decision to drop the proposals. The statement of facts presented valid points relevant to the decision, but the reasoning remained unclear. The grounds of appeal focused on the inadequacy of evidence and lack of coherent arguments against the impugned order.
Issue 6: Shabby Drafting of Statement of Facts and Lack of Grounds in Appeal
The Tribunal criticized the shabby drafting of the statement of facts, which mostly contained allegations without proper explanation of how they were addressed in the adjudication. The appeal lacked valid grounds to challenge the order and did not provide sufficient evidence or documents relied upon in the proceedings. The Tribunal rejected the appeal due to the lack of substantial grounds and evidence.
-
2007 (12) TMI 502
The Gujarat High Court admitted an appeal concerning the confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The questions raised included whether the goods were liable for confiscation and if the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty imposition. The Tribunal's decision on the goods' status and clearance under a specific notification was also questioned. The court issued a notice to the other party and scheduled the final hearing after 3 months.
-
2007 (12) TMI 498
Issues involved: Denial of credit on Shape and Section and M.S. Angle & Joist of Iron and Steel due to lack of disclosure on exact use or place where the products were used.
Summary:
The appellant appealed against the denial of credit on certain iron and steel products. The authorities below noted the lack of disclosure regarding the exact use or place where these items were utilized, with the appellant only stating they were used in repair and maintenance activities. The appellant cited a High Court case to support eligibility for credit on parts of capital goods used in fabrication, erection, or installation. The revenue, however, argued that these items cannot be considered components. The Tribunal referred to previous court decisions and found that the items were used as components in machinery, making them eligible for credit. The denial of credit was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2007 (12) TMI 495
Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal as no grounds found to interfere with the impugned order. (2007 (12) TMI 495 - SC)
-
2007 (12) TMI 492
Issues involved: Availability of modvat credit on Hexane classifiable under heading 2710.12, classification dispute, retrospective effect of Section 38A.
Availability of modvat credit on Hexane (2710.12): The dispute revolved around the availability of modvat credit on Hexane classified under heading 2710.12, which was excluded from the purview of admissibility of modvat credit as input. The impugned order confirmed a duty demand along with interest and a personal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, emphasizing that modvat credit on goods under this chapter heading was not available as per relevant notifications. The appellant's argument that Hexane should be classified under a different heading was dismissed, stating that classification cannot be changed at the input receiver end.
Classification dispute: The appellant contended that Hexane should be classified under heading 2912.00 instead of 2710.12, making them eligible for credit. However, it was established that the classification of the product cannot be altered at the input receiver end, and the manufacturer is responsible for correct classification with the approval of the Central Excise authority. Since no dispute existed at the manufacturer's end, the classification dispute could not be reopened at the input receiver end.
Retrospective effect of Section 38A: The appellant argued that one show cause notice issued after the substitution of modvat provisions was invalid. They relied on a Tribunal decision, while the Department cited a different case law. The issue was not raised before the lower authorities, leading to a remand for further examination. The demands from other show cause notices were confirmed, but the personal penalty was set aside due to the bonafide interpretation of the law by the appellant.
Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the duty demands from two show cause notices confirmed, while the matter regarding the show cause notice issued after the substitution of modvat provisions was remanded for further consideration. The personal penalty was waived considering the bonafide interpretation of the law by the appellant.
-
2007 (12) TMI 489
CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - Welding Electrodes used by the appellants for maintenance - Held that: - the issue has been covered in favor of the assessee in the case of Commissioner vs. Modi Rubber Ltd [2000 (5) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] in coming to the conclusion that welding electrodes used for repairs are eligible inputs entitled to credit - credit is admissible on welding electrodes - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2007 (12) TMI 464
Issues:
Petitioner seeking anticipatory bail for alleged violation of Section 9 of the Central Excise Act 1944.
Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail for allegedly evading excise duty amounting to Rs. 118 crores, arguing that he was not responsible for the evasion as he had resigned in 2005, and the evasion related to the year 2006-07 when he was not the Director of the company. The prosecution contended that Section 9 applied to any person evading duty, regardless of their position in the company, and that the petitioner, being a shareholder, was liable for prosecution. The defense emphasized Section 9 AA, stating that the prosecution must show the petitioner's involvement in the offense, either as a Director or in charge of the company's affairs. They also highlighted that the offense was now compoundable and non-cognizable, limiting the enforcement agency's power to arrest without proper procedure.
The enforcement agency opposed anticipatory bail, citing previous judgments and the seriousness of the duty evasion. They argued against bail based on the potential hindrance to the investigation, as seen in a previous case involving grave allegations of foreign exchange. The petitioner's counsel countered these arguments by asserting that the petitioner was not a Director during the relevant period and was not responsible for the company's business conduct, making the cited authority inapplicable to the current case.
After hearing both parties, the court noted that the petitioner was not a Director or responsible for the company's business conduct during the alleged offense period. Considering the completed investigation due to the detention of co-accused, the court found sending the petitioner to jail unnecessary. While the court could have imposed a deposit condition for the alleged duty evasion, the petitioner's resignation in 2005 in relation to the 2006-07 evasion made such a directive inappropriate. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner anticipatory bail, with the condition of executing a personal bond and joining investigations when summoned by enforcement officers.
-
2007 (12) TMI 463
The Bombay High Court stated that the refund application is in process. The order will be passed within three weeks after the petitioners provide the required information. The respondents must request the information within one week.
-
2007 (12) TMI 462
Issues:
Anticipatory bail application for alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act; Responsibility of an individual for evasion of duty by a company; Interpretation of provisions of Section 9 and Section 9 (A) (A); Necessity of custodial interrogation for reaching the truth; Applicability of Section 9 to individuals involved in company affairs; Consideration of documentary evidence over oral statements; Grant of anticipatory bail based on lack of evidence of individual's involvement.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around an anticipatory bail application concerning the alleged violation of Section 9 (A) (A) of the Central Excise Act by a petitioner linked to a company accused of evading excise duty. The petitioner, not a director or employee of the company in question, argued against personal liability under Section 9. The Additional Solicitor General contended that the petitioner, though not a director, was responsible for the company's affairs and liable under the wider scope of Section 9. Reference was made to legal provisions and authorities to support both arguments, emphasizing the petitioner's role in managing the company's conduct.
The court considered the petitioner's lack of directorship or direct involvement in the company's operations, relying on documentary evidence over oral statements implicating the petitioner. Noting the absence of proof linking the petitioner to the company's conduct or directorship, the court highlighted a notice addressing the petitioner in a different company's context, indicating no direct responsibility. Previous cases involving co-accused who resigned as directors before the alleged evasion were distinguished from the petitioner's situation, reinforcing the lack of evidence against the petitioner.
Given the absence of concrete evidence implicating the petitioner in the evasion of duty and his non-director status, the court granted anticipatory bail. The bail conditions required a personal bond and surety, with a mandate for the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation when required. The judgment emphasized the lack of evidence linking the petitioner to the company's affairs, leading to the grant of anticipatory bail based on the principle of parity and the petitioner's non-director status.
-
2007 (12) TMI 458
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the applicant, waiving the pre-deposit amount of service tax and penalties as the applicant had already deposited 50% of the demand as directed by the Tribunal. The remaining amount was deemed sufficient for the appeal hearing. Stay petition was allowed. (Citation: 2007 (12) TMI 458 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)
-
2007 (12) TMI 454
Issues: Priority of dues between Department of Customs and Central Excise and secured creditors, validity of temporary injunction against defendant no.2.
Analysis:
1. Priority of Dues: The case involved a dispute over the priority of dues between the Department of Customs and Central Excise and a secured creditor, defendant no.2. The Department sought to recover a sum from defendant no.1, who had mortgaged plots to defendant no.2 for a loan. Defendant no.2 had attached the plots under the State Financial Corporation Act, intending to sell them to recover the loan amount. The Department claimed precedence over the dues that defendant no.2 would receive from selling the plots. The court referred to legal precedents, including Sicom Ltd. v. Union of India and Syndicate Bank v. The Official Liquidator, to establish that the State does not have priority over secured creditors but only over non-secured creditors. As defendant no.2 had acted within the provisions of the Act, the Department had no grounds to obtain a temporary injunction against defendant no.2.
2. Validity of Temporary Injunction: The court found that the Department of Customs and Central Excise had not sought any relief against defendant no.2 in their plaint. As defendant no.2 was entitled to deal with the plots in accordance with the law to recover their dues, the court set aside the impugned order dated 30-6-2007. Consequently, defendant no.2 was granted the right to manage the plots, including the factory premises and machinery, as per the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act. The appeal was allowed in favor of defendant no.2 based on these findings.
In conclusion, the judgment clarified the priority of dues between the Department of Customs and Central Excise and secured creditors, emphasizing the rights of the latter under the State Financial Corporation Act. It also highlighted the importance of seeking appropriate relief in legal proceedings and upheld the rights of defendant no.2 to deal with the mortgaged plots for the recovery of their dues.
-
2007 (12) TMI 451
The judgment concerns the valuation of lipsticks of 10 gms or less under Section 4 or 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue has been settled in favor of the appellants based on previous decisions, leading to the impugned order being set aside and the appeals being allowed.
-
2007 (12) TMI 404
Issues:
1. Stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of confirmed amounts in Orders-in-Original.
2. Consideration of company's closure and assets under liquidation.
3. Arguments on evidence supporting clandestine removal charges and demand confirmation.
4. Confiscation of assets and penalty imposition on deceased director.
5. Granting waiver of pre-deposit, stay on recovery, and scheduling of final hearing.
Analysis:
1. The appellants filed stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of amounts confirmed in Orders-in-Original. The duty amounts and penalties were detailed for each order, spanning different periods from 1981 to 1985. The High Court of Kerala had remanded the matter for re-consideration of the stay applications.
2. The appellants' Chartered Accountant highlighted the company's liquidation status and cessation of operations for 20 years. All company assets were taken over by the Official Receiver, with no funds available for pre-deposit. The Revenue had not initiated recovery proceedings due to the High Court's order, leading to a request for waiver and listing of appeals for final hearing.
3. The Respondent's Detailed Representative submitted parawise comments and relied on various judgments, emphasizing substantial evidence supporting clandestine removal charges and demand confirmation. Confiscation of assets like land, building, plant, and machinery had occurred, with outstanding Redemption fine unpaid.
4. The Chartered Accountant argued that due to asset confiscation, pre-deposit was unnecessary. Mention was made of a deceased Director, proposing a waiver of the meager penalty imposed on him. The company's closure and asset status were reiterated to support the waiver request.
5. After careful consideration, the Tribunal acknowledged the company's long closure and asset takeover by the Official Receiver, making pre-deposit impractical. The stay applications were allowed, granting waiver and staying recovery until appeal disposal. The matters, being old, were scheduled for final hearing on a specified date, with both sides required to prepare for arguments without adjournments. The Tribunal directed the listing of these matters as the sole item for the day, emphasizing a prompt and conclusive hearing process.
-
2007 (12) TMI 403
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 75/2005-C.E. passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals -II) Hyderabad regarding demand confirmation and penalty imposition u/s Notification 83/99 for job work done from small scale units.
Summary:
Issue 1: Demand confirmation and penalty imposition u/s Notification 83/99
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand of Rs. 9,23,793/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the period from 1-6-98 to 31-8-99. The appellant received job work from small scale units and returned finished goods to them. The main ground for the demand was that the suppliers did not follow the procedure required under Notification 83/99. The appellant argued that there was no wilful suppression to evade duty, as they rectified the procedure after an audit in 1999. The Tribunal found no justification for invoking the longer period, as the show cause notice was issued on 2-7-2003 for the period from 1-6-98 to 31-8-99. The appeal was allowed on the grounds of time bar due to lack of intent to evade duty.
*(Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)*
-
2007 (12) TMI 402
Issues involved: Denial of credit for welding electrodes, copper tubes, plain plates/sheets, paint, and DA gas.
Welding electrodes and DA gas: The Tribunal's precedent established that welding electrodes and DA gases are not eligible for credit as inputs for capital goods, as they are used for maintenance purposes only. Therefore, the denial of credit for these items was upheld.
Copper tubes: The appellant argued that copper tubes should be eligible for credit as they are used in the factory for manufacturing the final product, in line with the definition of capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The Revenue contended that the exact use of the pipes was not demonstrated, leading to the denial of credit. The appellant clarified that the tubes are used as component parts in the production of sugar, making them eligible for credit.
Plain plates and plain steel sheets: The appellant asserted that these items are used in fabricating parts of capital goods, which was not disputed by the authorities. The denial of credit was based on the lack of provisions for allowing credit on raw materials of capital goods. However, as per the definition of inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, goods used in manufacturing capital goods are eligible for credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the sheets and plates were indeed used as parts or components of machines, leading to the setting aside of the denial of credit.
Paint: The definition of inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules explicitly includes paint. Since paint is used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product within the factory, the denial of credit for paint was deemed unsustainable and set aside.
Penalty: Given the Tribunal's resolution of the issue regarding credit for welding electrodes and the existence of divergent views previously, the imposition of penalties for the denial of credit on electrodes and DA gases was deemed unwarranted. Therefore, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (12) TMI 401
Issues involved: Determination of value of processed fabrics, imposition of duty, imposition of personal penalty, invocation of longer period for demand.
Determination of value of processed fabrics: The appellant, a processor of man-made fabrics on job work basis, was involved in a dispute regarding the value of grey fabrics supplied by traders. A duty was confirmed against the appellant due to alleged undervaluation of grey fabrics by the merchant-manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the assessable value of processed fabrics must consider the correct value of grey fabrics, and job workers cannot evade duty liability. The appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as it was raised beyond the limitation period and there was no evidence of their involvement in undervaluation. Relying on a previous decision, the appellant contended that without proof of their participation in undervaluation, the longer period for demand was unjustified.
Imposition of duty and personal penalty: The Tribunal observed that there was no evidence implicating the appellant in undervaluation, and the demand was indeed time-barred. Citing a previous decision, it was held that the appellant should not be held liable for the duty or penalty. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant with consequential relief.
Invocation of longer period for demand: The Tribunal emphasized that without concrete evidence of the appellant's involvement in undervaluation, the invocation of a longer period for demand was unjustified. It was noted that the department took almost two years to conclude the under-declared values by traders, and the appellant could not be held accountable for the alleged undervaluation without sufficient grounds. The duty demands and liabilities to confiscation were deemed unsustainable in the absence of evidence implicating the appellant.
This judgment highlights the importance of establishing clear evidence of involvement in undervaluation before imposing duties and penalties on job workers. It also underscores the significance of adhering to limitation periods for raising demands and the need for proper investigation before holding parties accountable for alleged violations.
-
2007 (12) TMI 400
Merchant Over Time (MOT) charges - whether the MOT Charges can be collected for the work of examination relating to export cargo at the premises of the appellant during the office hours? - Held that: - When the services are only optional, they are free to not to avail services and not to pay the prescribed fees - Prescribing fees for rendering optional services by the Government authorities is an accepted norm - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2007 (12) TMI 399
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad allowed the ROM application filed by the appellant. The Revenue was directed not to stop clearances of the applicant during the intervening period.ROM listed for 17-12-07.
-
2007 (12) TMI 398
Issues:
1. Rectification of mistakes in the Tribunal's order regarding violation of principles of natural justice and confiscation of goods.
2. Lack of findings by the Tribunal on seized goods leading to applications for recall of the order.
3. Department's application for rectification of an arithmetical mistake in the total confirmed demands.
Analysis:
1. Rectification of Mistakes:
- M/s. Yogi Bearing Co. Pvt. Ltd. filed an application for rectification, claiming the Tribunal did not consider their contentions on natural justice violations and confiscation of goods. They argued that copies of requested documents were not provided, and cross-examination of a key witness was not allowed. However, the Tribunal found these contentions were considered during the proceedings and after reviewing records, the order was passed.
- The Tribunal highlighted that cross-examination in adjudication proceedings is not an absolute right but depends on the case's circumstances. The applicant was given opportunities for cross-examination during the process, and the Commissioner had considered various affidavits. The failure to provide documents and cross-examination requests were not strongly raised earlier.
2. Lack of Findings on Seized Goods:
- Another application by M/s. Yogi Marketing Pvt. Ltd. raised concerns about the lack of Tribunal findings on seized goods, leading to a request for recalling the order. The Tribunal clarified that findings on the confiscated goods were indeed present in the order, refuting the applicant's claim of factual inaccuracies.
3. Arithmetical Mistake Rectification:
- The Department's application highlighted an arithmetical error in totaling the confirmed demands. Both parties agreed on the mistake, leading to a rectification where the duty demand was corrected from Rs. 39,10,287/- to Rs. 40,10,287/-.
In conclusion, the Tribunal addressed the rectification applications by thoroughly examining the issues raised by the parties. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering all submissions and records before passing an order. It clarified misunderstandings regarding findings on confiscated goods and rectified the arithmetical mistake in the total demands. The applications were disposed of based on the above considerations, ensuring a fair and accurate resolution of the legal matters presented before the Tribunal.
........
|
9911796707
