|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (12) TMI 125
Manufacturers of refined vegetable oils (dutiable), by-product viz. de-oiled cake (exempted) - Demand raised u/r 6(3)(b) CCR to pay 8% of the price of the exempted product, for non-maintaining separate inventory accounts for common input Hexane - maintenance of separate accounts with reference to dutiable and exempted products is impossible in instant case, hence Rule 6(3) does not get attracted - entire credit taken on Hexane has been reversed so demand is not sustainable
-
2007 (12) TMI 124
Whether the Principal Seat at Chennai has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India - it is clear that territorial jurisdiction of the Court & 'cause of action' are inter-lined - to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction, it is necessary to find out the place where the 'cause of action' arose – since grievance of appellant arose at Chennai, as such Principal Bench has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter, not single judge
-
2007 (12) TMI 123
Extra Neutral Alcohol (E.N.A) & Denatured Spirit – asessee reversed 8% of sale value of rectified spirit for non maintenance of separate account of impugned products – as per sec. 83, F.A. education Cess is leviable only on excisable goods. As far as rectified spirit is concerned, the same is not liable to Excise Duty as the product comes under the State Excise. Since the impugned goods are not excisable, there is no question of payment of any Education Cess on the 8% amount
-
2007 (12) TMI 122
Received back 21 machines for repair and cleared the machines on payment of duty on the transaction value – in case of 3 machines duty was short paid - On the short payment being pointed out, assessee made short payment and also paid interest till the date of payment of before issue of SCN - clerical error and not deliberately - intent to evade duty is not established - duty due and interest thereon was paid before issue of SCN, penalty under Section 11AC is not warranted
-
2007 (12) TMI 121
Remission in case of robbery - Rule 21 allows remission of duty for goods lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident - Rule doesn’t allow remission for goods stolen, pilferred or lost due to robbery/dacoity - remission is allowed in case when goods cannot be taken for domestic consumption – but in case of robbery goods are not actually destroyed, they will come in market ultimately – remission not allowed as loss is neither by natural causes nor by unavoidable accident
-
2007 (12) TMI 118
Demand raised on ground that assessee has not challenged the assessment of goods, which were lost due to fire accident - condition imposed by Comm(A) that remission will be allowed only after reversing credit input, is not tenable – revenue plea that assessee has not challenge assessment order which was conditional, is not acceptable - held that there is no need to reverse the credit taken on inputs used in final products, destroyed in fire – demand set aside – revenue appeal rejected
-
2007 (12) TMI 116
Exporters of readymade garments – refund claim filed for credit paid – in OIO refund claim was returned with a direction to produce original documents along with claim – again assessee filed refund claim in which refund was sanctioned - date of filing of the refund claim cannot change – as per sec. 11BB the interest is liable to be paid by dept. if the refund claim has not been sanctioned within 3 months from the date of filing of the claim – since refund is delayed interest is payable by dept.
-
2007 (12) TMI 114
Credit denied on holograms on the ground that the same are not used in or in relation to mfg. of final product (ball and rolling bearing) - after availing the credit on holograms, they were cleared without reversing the credit to packing material supplier – packing material supplier supplies packing material to appellant on payment of duty – in this case clearance of holograms (inputs) will be treated as clearance of input as such, therefore credit is deniable – penalty is justified
-
2007 (12) TMI 111
Credit denied on items used for fabrication of machinery used in manufacture & installation of pollution control equipment - Central Govt made obligatory for factories mfg. industrial spirit, to install pollution control equipment (bio-gas plant) - as per the definition of capital goods during the relevant period all specified goods including pollution control equipment & component, parts & accessories of these goods are entitled for credit as capital goods – therefore, credit is allowed
-
2007 (12) TMI 110
Manufacture of acrylic mink blankets – waste arise during mfg. of goods to be exported – credit of inputs contained on waste is refundable or not - refund is admissible in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final product which are cleared for export- no dispute regarding the use of inputs in the manufacture of final products which was cleared for export - no prohibition under the Rules for claiming refund in respect of credit on inputs contained in the waste – revenue appeal dismissed
-
2007 (12) TMI 106
“Furnace Casing of Zinc” made of iron and steel are used as part of furnace, credit allowed – “cable trays” are providing support to cables which provide power for running of machinery for mfg. final product are eligible for credit – “S.I. Poles” & “Nitrogen and other gases” are not used for manufacture of goods, so credit not admissible – “labour charges” on which credit has been availed & duty has been paid on them so they are not input, so not eligible for credit – appeal partly allowed
-
2007 (12) TMI 105
Whether the rental charges collected from customers on cylinders used for supply of their excisable goods (Industrial Gases & Medical grade Oxygen) is includable in the AV of goods or not - excise is a levy on manufacture & this holds goods even after amendment of Sec. 4 w.e.f.1-7-2000 - rental charges are entirely different & what is sold by appellant is only gas & not cylinder - every auxiliary activity of manufacturer is not liable for Excise duty & it cannot be includable in the AV of goods
-
2007 (12) TMI 104
Demand raised on ground that ECCC(assessee) & BIL are related persons, so sale price of BIL was taken as base to assess assessee’s( ECCC’s) products – both are limited companies - no finding of flowback of funds from one unit to other - no finding of mutuality of interest between them - BIL’s employee being a Director of ECCC, BIL advancing funds to its supplier, & ECCC selling its entire production to BIL are not adequate ground to hold that both are related persons – impugned order set aside
-
2007 (12) TMI 100
Revenue submitted that waste and scrap of empty containers of aluminium/MS/Tins are as a result of manufacture by the respondent and hence, they would attract duty - aluminium/MS/Tins in which the pesticide is received by manufacturers(because of defectiveness) could not be treated to be a waste arising out of processing of the inputs for which credit has been taken - No duty leviable on impugned containers (in which goods were received back), which were cleared from factory as waste & scrap
-
2007 (12) TMI 99
Defective goods received back, stored in office premises seized by dept. under belief that goods weren’t cleared on payment of duty – if the duty is paid subsequent to the clearance of the goods the plea of unjust enrichment cannot be raised - question of recovery of duty does not arise when the initial payment of duty is accepted and refund is not being claimed of the initial duty paid and duty is paid second time - unjust enrichment not applicable – refund allowed
-
2007 (12) TMI 96
Default in payment of duty in year 2002 - During that period the rate of interest prevailing was only 15% as per not. 19/02 - respondent paid the actual duty after 1-3-2003 when the rate of interest changed – held that rate prevailing only at the time of default should be taken - second Notification 12/2003 dated 1-3-2003 will be applicable only for the default which occurred after 1-3-2003 – Not. 19/02 dated 13.5.02 providing rate of interest @ 15 % is applicable in present case
-
2007 (12) TMI 95
Compounded levy scheme - it was not open to the Revenue to recover any amount equivalent to MODVAT credit taken and utilized in respect of inputs lying in stock, or contained in finished goods lying in stock – assessee can’t be asked to pay an amount equivalent to the input duty credit already utilized - Show-Cause Notice dated 12-12-1997, for the period March to July 1997, is time-barred, as there is no allegation of suppression or mis-statement in SCN
-
2007 (12) TMI 94
Compounded levy scheme – 50% duty not paid by 15th of the month - serious allegations of breaking departmental seal stand admitted by the appellant, which reflect upon their mala fide - goods seized were liable to confiscation - redemption fine and penalty are reduced inasmuch as 50% of the dues even for the month of the December, were required to be deposited at the end of the month – director aware of braking of seal, personal penalty imposable
-
2007 (12) TMI 89
Job worker - Demand of duty on lubricant & coolant repacked from bulk to smaller packs & cleared to IOCL – W.e.f. 1-3-1997 activity of repacking came to be deemed manufacture, hence excisable & SSI unit, were not required to get registered before that period – assessee was informed of such amendments only in July, 1998 when the Excise officers visited their premises – SCN issued on 26-2-02 based on material gathered before 3½ years back i.e. on July 98, not justified – demand is time barred
-
2007 (12) TMI 88
Commissioner confirmed demand for suppression, taking a view that there was no Notification for the interregnum period 1-7-2004 to 3-8-2004, which grants exemption to the assessee - appellants made a representation to the Govt. for granting exemption for the interregnum period and the Govt., after due consideration, has issued Notification 25/06 u/s 11C of the CEA exempting duty on ‘Ethanol Blended Petrol’ for the interregnum period – Demand is time barred
............
|
9911796707
