|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 246 Records
-
2007 (4) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ena,Adv. For the Respondent Mr. P.Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr.Adv., Mr. S.S.Aristotle, Adv.,Mr. P. Narasimhan, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv. ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appeal admitted.
-
2007 (4) TMI 756 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ce in this regard is made to Tribunal's decision in case of TGL Poshak Corpn. reported in 2002 (140) ELT 187 (Tri.-Chennai), which has discussed the entire law on the point; Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. reported in 2002 (141) ELT 676 (T); Emtex Synthetics Ltd. reported in 2003 (54) RLT 526 (CEGAT-Del.) 2003 (151) ELT 170 (T). The law on the point is well settled that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be proved beyond doubt by production of sufficient and affirmative evidence and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It is not understood as to why the Revenue has not conducted further verification from the buyers of the goods or the purchasers, when the details of the same were, according to them, available in said register. Having failed to conduct further investigation, Revenue can not now confirm the demand on the basis of sole entry. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2007 (4) TMI 754 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... t within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 740 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI.
... ...
... ... ..... re entitled for benefit of notification. In these circumstances, we find that as the applicant produced invoices as well as certificate from M/s. BEML to show that the goods manufactured by the applicants were supplied to M/s. BEML and further used in the manufacture of goods which were supplied to the Min. of Defence. Therefore, the amount already deposited is sufficient for hearing of the appeal. Pre-deposit of remaining amount of duty and penalties are waived. 3. The evidence now produced by the applicant to show that M/s. BEML manufactured the goods by using the goods supplied by the applicant and the same further supplied to the Min. of Defence was not before the lower authorities and the same requires clarification. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for deciding afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of by way of remand. Order dictated in the open Court.
-
2007 (4) TMI 723 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... he Supreme Court decision in Laghu Udyog Bharati’s case (supra) amendments were carried out in terms of section 116 of the Finance Act, 2000 making recipient of the clearing and forwarding service liable for payment of service tax for the period from 16-7-1997 to 16-10-1998. The Chennai Tribunal in the cited decision supra, has exhaustively dealt with the issue and has held that the Parliament has authorised the collection only up to 16-10-1998 and the revenue cannot assume authority to collect such tax from the service recipient for any period beyond 16-10-1998. It has also held that section 117 is procedural and does not in any way alter in substantive provision brought on the statute book by section 116. Thus, in terms of law as interpreted by the CESTAT’s Chennai Bench, no service tax liability can be fastened on the recipient of the C & F agent beyond 16-10-1998. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the revenue’s appeal. Hence we reject the same.
-
2007 (4) TMI 717 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... facts, we do not wish to interfere. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.”
-
2007 (4) TMI 716 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
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 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... ve order of the Commissioner (Appeals), inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show that the goods were not entered in RG-1 with an intention to remove the same by clandestinely. For non-entry of goods in the statutory records, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already imposed maximum penalty of ₹ 2,000/- in terms of Rule 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. 3. In view of the above, I find no merits in the appeal and reject the same. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (4) TMI 707 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... the appellants cites a decision of the Tribunal in the similar case of M/s. Central Cables Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2006 (74) RLT 767 (CESTAT-Mum.) 2006 (196) ELT 157 (T), wherein it has been held that when the final goods are supplied under Chapter X procedure, the credit is not deniable following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Escorts Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2004 (64) RLT 227 (SC) 2004 (171) ELT 145 (SO. He also states that the decision of the Tribunal has been accepted by the Department and no further appeal has been filed against the same. As such, following the ratio of the said decision in the case of Central Cables Ltd. (cited supra) which is similar to the case at hand, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal holding that the credit is not deniable in respect of Sulphuric Acid supplied duty free under Chapter X procedure. 2. Appeal is allowed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2007 (4) TMI 706 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ade regarding entitlement to abatement of duty for the period for which the factory was closed. 4. We have considered the submissions. We find that all the show cause notices and order-in-original referred to annual capacity of production as determined by the Commissioner vide his letter dated 29.09.1997. This capacity was determined on provisional basis and even after the direction of the Hon ble Bombay High Court, the matter was left open till the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court. No final order has been passed as yet. In such a situation, confirmation of demand of duty is premature. As the capacity has to be finalized first and thereafter the question of payment of differential duty should arise. In view of this, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and hold that the annual capacity of production should be first determined finally and thereafter the demands, if any, should be adjudicated. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (pronounced in court)
-
2007 (4) TMI 702 - CESTAT MUMBAI
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 - CESTAT MUMBAI
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 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ) dated 02.06.2003, clearly held that demands cannot be raised for delay in transfer of accounts from Principal Chief Controller of Accounts to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. (2) THE learned Counsel refers to this order and prays for remand of the matter to the original authority by allowing the appeal and giving a direction to the authority to apply the ratio of this judgment. (3) THE learned JDR reiterates the departmental view. On a careful consideration, we notice that the issue involved in the appeal has been decided by the Hon'ble President by Final Order cited supra. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal under Section 35F is not justified. The impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for do novo consideration and to apply the ratio of the Tribunal's ruling rendered by the Final Order cited supra passed by the Hon'ble President within four months from the receipt of this order. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2007 (4) TMI 692 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... te submits that even if it is held that amortized value of such dies and moulds is added in the value of the parts, and such total value stands recovered from their customer, the same would not establish unjust enrichment on the part of the appellant in as much as refund in question relates to the original duty payment of dies and moulds, which were never cleared from their factory and the cost of which was never recovered from their customer. In as much as there was no sale of dies and moulds to M/s Ashok Leyland Ltd., the question of recovering any duty paid thereon does not arise. 4. All the above submissions made by the appellant though convincing, relates to the factual position, which needs verification by the original adjudicating authority. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Astt. Commissioner for fresh adjudication in the light of the appellant s submission. 5. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (4) TMI 688 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ny consideration." On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and more particularly, what is stated by the opponents in Paragraph-5 of their affidavit-in-reply, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served if the opponents are restrained from alienating the movable and immovable properties belonging to them, without permission of this Court or the Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs-III, Custom House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, during the pendency of the petition. For the foregoing reasons, the application partly succeeds. The opponents are restrained from transferring, alienating or disposing of the movable or immovable properties belonging to them, without the permission of either this Court or the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs-III, Custom House, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, during the pendency and final disposal of the petition. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated here in above. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
2007 (4) TMI 686 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... dingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that the assessee would be entitled to refund, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2007 (4) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
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 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... dy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (4) TMI 680 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... te is not excisable for the reason that for the period in dispute viz. prior to 1-3-1997 there was no classification heading in the Tariff for Ready Mix Concrete. The dispute is prior to 1-3-1997. Therefore, the ratio of the above cited order is applicable in all fours to the facts of the present case. Following the ratio thereof, we set aside the impugned order by which duty demand has been confirmed and penalties imposed upon the company as well as on two officers and allow the appeals.
-
2007 (4) TMI 675 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Further more Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for the respondents points out that Shri Amarnath is not a competent person to give any such statement since the stock register is maintained by store in-charge Shri Sanjeev Srivastav. Further, it is also submitted that Shri Sanjeev Srivastav also gave his affidavit to that effect and copies of the stock register showing use of inputs in the exempted goods very much available on record. In view of this rival contentions it is felt expedient that the matter be adjudicated once again in de novo proceedings keeping all the issues open to both the parties and arriving at specific findings on the objections raised by both the sides. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to original adjudicating authority for proper appraisal of the records and to give specific findings on the issues now raised before the Tribunal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the result appeal is allowed in remand in above terms keeping all issues open.
........
|
