|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 219 Records
-
2007 (6) TMI 560 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... cess of the duty assessed) in any manner as representing duty of excise from the buyer of such goods. In the instant case, we find that only a composite price under the administered pricing mechanism has been charged from the buyers under relevant invoices. We do not find any amount has been charged representing the same as duty of excise. Therefore, one of the main ingredient to attract Section 11D is lacking in this case. 3. In view of above, since the depot of the HPCL has only recovered from the buyer the amount fixed under the administered pricing mechanism without collecting any amount representing the same as duty of excise, we are of the view that Section 11D is not attracted in this case. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 5. The issue remains covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid order. Following that order, these appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 551 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... duction of P.C. Poles in terms of Rule 6(b)(ii) of Valuation Rules, 1975, or Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, 2000, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant was not a profit making organization ? “
-
2007 (6) TMI 539 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... are sub-judice. In the present case, the action of the authorities in adjusting the refund is against the legal provisions. Section 11 should be involved only when the demands have reached finality and should not be invoked even at the initial stage. Section 11BB provides interest for delayed refunds. This is squarely applicable to the present case. The Commissioner (A) has not at all given any reason as to why the said section is not applicable. In view of the above findings, we allow the appeal with consequential relief." 9. It is clear from the above observations of the Tribunal that ex-parte, arbitrary and erroneous adjustment of amounts due to an assessee by revenue authorities does not affect the assessee's claim for interest in regard to a delayed refund/rebate claim from the date of filing of the claim. 10. The impugned order is set aside and both appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant. Dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-
2007 (6) TMI 537 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ”. In the present case, I find that the appellants had reversed the Cenvat credit in the month of February and March, 2004, whereas the show cause notice was issued on 15-9-2005. I, therefore, find that the ratio of the decision, supra is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, the interest demanded under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is liable to be set aside.” 4. From the above reproduced portion of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) it is very clear that there is no contrary evidence to show that the credit availed by the respondent was not in line with the provisions of Rule 12, that is to say that they are taken credit wrongly. In the absence of any such contrary evidence, I am in agreement with the impugned order and the same does not require any interference. 5. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 536 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... the issue of show cause notice, the question of levy of interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC does not arise”. In the present case, I find that the appellants had paid the Central Excise duty of ₹ 5,22,453/- and interest of ₹ 2,06,410/- on 31-3-2003, whereas show cause notice was issued on 6-7-2004, I, therefore, find that the ratio of the decisions, supra are squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, I set aside the penalty of ₹ 5,22,453/- imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944”. From the above reproduced findings it is very clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the law as settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gaurav Mercantiles Ltd. 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.) . 6. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any merits in the appeal of Revenue and the appeal is rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 535 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... t case, duty of ₹ 1,11,813/- was paid before the issue of show cause notice. Thus the ratio of the decision is therefore squarely applicable in the present case and the penalty of ₹ 1,11,813/- imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the penalty is set aside. The duty demand of ₹ 1,11,813/- and recovery of interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 are upheld”. From the above reproduced findings, it is very clear that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed by law as settled by the series of decisions of this Tribunal and it is also seen that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCE v. Gaurav Mercantile Ltd. as reported at 2005 (190) E.L.T. 11 (Bom.) , in favour of respondents. 5. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 532 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for non-deposit of pre-deposit amount. 2. It may be noted here that the Petitioner did not challenge the order of pre-deposit dated 20th October, 2005 and sought extension of time twice, and at this belated stage the Petitioner is seeking to move this Court. We are not inclined to entertain this petition. We do not find anything illegal or erroneous in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the Petition stands dismissed. 3. Now, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has already deposited ₹ 6.5 lakhs out of the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 10 lakhs and that the Petitioner undertakes to deposit the balance amount of ₹ 3.5 lakhs within a period of eight weeks from today. Hence, it is made clear that if the aforesaid balance amount of ₹ 3.5 lakhs is deposited by the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, the aforesaid Appeal before the CESTAT will stand revived for disposal, failing which it will remain dismissed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 530 - CESTAT BANGLORE
... ...
... ... ..... OCL Vs. C.C., Mangalore 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1152 (Tri. - Chennai) (iv) MSEB Pole Factory Vs. CCE., Aurangabad 2005 (187) E.L.T. 209 (Tri. - Mumbai) 2. The learned Counsel submits that in terms of the above noted judgments, the interest is payable only after finalization of assessment and not when the duty was paid during the provisional assessment. 3. The learned DR re-iterates the findings of the lower authorities. 4. I have perused the judgments and found that the issue is covered in the assessee's favour. There is no dispute in the matter that the assessments were provisional. In terms Rule 7 (4) of the Central Excise Rule, 2002, the interest is payable only after the expiry of period of one month from date when the amount is determined. The confirmation of demand is not justified. Respectfully following the ratio of the above judgments, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
-
2007 (6) TMI 524 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of Education Cess - Area based exemption - Education Cess - Held that: - it is evident that when the exempted amount of duty was required to be refunded for operationalising the exemption, Education Cess, which was in the nature of piggy back duty on the excise duties under the said three Acts, was also required to be refunded, because it was not at all leviable, in view of the entitlement to exemption worked out under Paragraph 2 of the said Notification - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 520 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Reduction of penalty - delay in payment of service tax repeatedly - Held that: - amnesty scheme was introduced in 2004 allowing the assessee to pay Service Tax along with interest and even though the amnesty scheme did not provide for non-imposition of penalty - penalty reduced.
-
2007 (6) TMI 519 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cleared the duty paid inputs and capital goods without reversing the amount. 5. It is seen from the records that the appellants had contested before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority is not correct and order-in-original is traveling beyond the show cause notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on this point. The imposition of penalty and interest would be relevant only on the conclusion of finding on confirmation of demand. Since there is no finding on this point, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Commissioner (Appeals) for re-considering the issue afresh and arrive at proper conclusion after granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. Accordingly, leaving all the issues open, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the issue afresh. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 518 - CESTAT DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e for credit in terms of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum as reported in 2005 (180) E.L.T. 92 (Tri Bang.). He would also point out that the same dispute had arisen between the parties and credit was allowed under this Tribunal s order reported in 2006 (73) R.L.T. 451 (CESTAT Del.). 6. The learned SDR would rely on Single Bench decision in the case of Oil Steels final order No. 1750 of 06, in support of the order. 7. It is seen that the dispute does not survive between the parties in view of the decision in appellant s own case as well as the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Bellary Steels & Alloys Ltd. (Supra). 8. In the result, appeal is allowed in as much as it relates to claim other than in regard to welding electrodes. 9. In view of the legal nature of the dispute, penalty has no place. The same is also set aside. 10. Appeal is ordered in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 517 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - freight - insurance - includibility - Held that: - the values need not be included - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (6) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - Whether invoice issued under Rule 52A of CER by a Manufacturer and endorsed in favour of Modvat availer is valid under first proviso to Rule 57G (2) of CER after 1.4.1994?
-
2007 (6) TMI 511 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT credit - sale of pre-paid SIM Cards - Held that: - the service tax cannot be levied as the appellants were carrying on the activity of sale of pre-paid SIM cards - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 510 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... earing on this issue produced by the assessee, have not been gone through. It is, therefore, appropriate to remand the matter for reconsideration of this issue in the light of the relevant material that might have been produced before the concerned authorities. 8. For the foregoing reasons, Appeal Nos. 1852/2006, 2778/2006 and 565/2007 filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 9. As regards Appeal No. 939/2006 filed by the appellant/assessee, we set aside only that portion of the order which relates to transportation charges and remit the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration of that issue on the basis of the relevant material that may have been adduced by the appellant/assessee and in the light of the decisions in Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi (supra) and Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore (supra) relied upon by them. This appeal is accordingly allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 14th day of June, 2007)
-
2007 (6) TMI 508 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... covery of penalty is being granted in view of the fact that all along the petitioner was relying upon the decision dated 5-8-2004 of the Tribunal in the case of Vinayaka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Company v. CCE Bangalore, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 107, appeal against which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 3-1-2005 and it is only recently on 21-5-2007 that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has decided the matter against the petitioner. 7. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties including the contention of Mr. Harin Raval for the respondents that the facts in the instant case are not similar to the facts in Vinayaka Mosquito Coil Manufacturing Company v. CCE, Bangalore (Supra). This contention will also be examined at the time of final hearing and we may not be treated to have expressed any final opinion on the above contention. 8. Notice of rule to the learned Attorney General of India, returnable on 10-9-2007.
-
2007 (6) TMI 487 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he amount of interest as ordered aforesaid within 15 days of receipt of this order and communicate it to the applicant, who thereupon shall pay it within the next 15 days. The applicant shall furnish proof of payment of interest, both to the Commission and the Revenue. Penalty Penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) is imposed on the applicant. Immunity towards penalty is granted to the co-applicants. Prosecution Immunity from prosecution is also granted to the applicant and the co-applicants from prosecution under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 30. The above immunities are granted under sub Section (1) of Section 32K of the Act. Attention of the applicant is also drawn to the provisions of sub Section (2) and (3) ibid. 31. This order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub Section (9) of Section 32F of the Act if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 32. All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2007 (6) TMI 483 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... s, 1975. On the other hand, it is the appellant rsquo s contention that though the said rule is applicable, the same allows for certain adjustment to be made. In as much as the goods cleared by them from the factory involved the cost of the packing, transportation, loading and unloading, labour charges etc., the said elements are required to be deducted from the sale price so as to correctly arrive at the value of the captively consumed yarn. 2. emsp After hearing both the sides, we find that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 237 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein it was held, that the expenses incurred on account of packing in respect of the cleared goods are not includible in the assessable value of the captively consumed goods. By following the ratio of the above decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 482 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Confiscation and penalty - Man-made fabrics, notified goods ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal s decision in case of Agha Khan as relied upon by the appellant is not applicable to the facts of instant case in as much as the appellant in that case had produced on record the copies of the invoices issued by the firm from whom he had purchased the fabric. In the instant case, no purchase documents have been produced on record by the appellant. As such, I am of the view that the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty is in accordance with the law. However, keeping in view that there is no charge on the appellant having himself smuggled the goods and keeping in view the value of the goods, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousands only) and penalty on the firm to Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousands only). There is no justification for imposition of separate penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Bajaj. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 6. emsp Both the appeals are disposed off in above manner. (Pronounced in Court on 15-6-2007)
........
|
