|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 480
Issues: Classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, the issue revolved around the classification of goods under tariff entry Heading 70.10 for duty assessment. The appellants claimed the goods to be Founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The relevant tariff entry under Heading 70.10 specifically included glass founts for kerosene wick lamps and glass chimneys for lanterns. The tariff rate of duty for these items was nil due to their essential use by the poorest section of society.
The appellants argued that no dispute was raised by the Department regarding the classification of these items before 1-4-03. However, for the period from 1-4-2003 to 31-3-2004, the Department requested end-use certificates for these items and denied the nil rate of duty. The appellants contended that the glass items in question were solely for kerosene lamps and lanterns with no alternative use. They emphasized that the Department lacked any evidence to support a different use of these items.
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the Department's actions were arbitrary as they had consistently allowed nil duty assessment for the impugned goods previously. The Tribunal noted that the tariff itself did not mandate the need for end-use certificates. Furthermore, the Department failed to provide any evidence demonstrating an alternative use for the glass items apart from kerosene lamps and lanterns. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order, waiving the predeposit requirement, and allowing the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence and consistency in duty assessment decisions by the Department.
-
2007 (11) TMI 479
Issues:
Valuation of clearances of footwear under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on MRP assessment.
Analysis:
The case involved appeals against an order sustaining a demand and penalty imposed on the appellant for valuation of clearances of footwear under Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 based on MRP assessment. The lower authorities had rejected MRP-based assessment, stating that the footwear was sold directly by the manufacturer to the consumer without intermediaries. They held that the retail price included various expenses not incurred by the appellant, thus requiring assessment under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant argued that MRP assessment should not be denied as the footwear bore MRP, was sold directly to users, and met the SWM-PC Rules requirements. They contended that the retail price marked represented the total proceeds realized. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of Section 4A in light of relevant case law, including the Jayanti Food Processing case.
The Tribunal examined the Apex Court's interpretation in the Jayanti Food Processing case, which outlined the conditions for goods to fall under Section 4A. The Court highlighted that excisable goods sold in packages with retail price declaration requirements could be valued based on retail sale price. In this case, the Tribunal found that the impugned goods met the criteria for Section 4A assessment. The goods were packed as per SWM-PC Rules, sold at marked retail price directly to consumers by the manufacturer, complying with Rule 23(2) of SWM-PC Rules. The absence of MRP on the package but on the footwear itself did not disqualify the goods for Section 4A assessment, as it prevented retailers from charging higher prices. Thus, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, vacating the impugned order and allowing the appeals.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the applicability of MRP-based assessment under Section 4A of the Act for clearances of footwear. By considering the legal provisions, case law, and SWM-PC Rules requirements, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's footwear met the conditions for MRP assessment, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant and setting aside the demand and penalty imposed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 478
Issues:
Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, denial of Cenvat credit, imposition of penalty, settlement under KVSS, re-sale of rejected consignments, jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) post settlement.
Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of Cenvat credit and imposition of a penalty. The appellant, having a factory in Surat and a branch office in Ahmedabad, cleared consignments of steel articles from Surat, some of which were rejected by consignees and re-sold at the Ahmedabad premises. The Assistant Commissioner proposed denying Cenvat credit, but later allowed it with a penalty. The appellant appealed against the penalty, settled under KVSS by paying 50% of the penalty, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. Subsequently, the department appealed against the dropping of the duty demand, which the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed.
The appellant argued that the department's appeal should not have been entertained post the penalty settlement under KVSS, citing Section 92 of the Finance Act, 1988. The Tribunal noted that both the appellant and the department had filed appeals against the same original authority order. The Tribunal opined that since the dispute was settled under KVSS, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have reopened the issue in the department's appeal.
The Tribunal observed that the rejected consignments, instead of being returned to the factory for resale, were received at the branch office, a registered dealer under Central Excise. While it was acknowledged that the credit was wrongly passed on, no action was shown to have been taken against those utilizing the credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the settlement under KVSS precluded the reopening of the dispute by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the department's appeal. The case highlighted the importance of following proper procedures in dealing with rejected consignments and Cenvat credit issues under Central Excise regulations.
-
2007 (11) TMI 477
Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes, plates, Shapers, Shafts, and packing material.
Analysis:
1. Welding Electrodes: The issue of Cenvat credit on Welding Electrodes was settled in previous decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The denial of credit in this case was upheld based on those precedents.
2. Packing Material: The appellants used packing material to prevent leakage in pipes during the manufacture of BP sugar and molasses. The Tribunal found that the packing material served as mechanical seals to prevent heat and liquid leakage, making the denial of credit unsustainable.
3. Shafts: The credit for shafts was denied as they were classified under a tariff heading not included in the definition of capital goods. However, since the shafts were used as parts of a mill, which falls under the definition of capital goods, the denial of credit was deemed unsustainable.
4. Plates and Shapers: Plates and shapers were used as raw material for the fabrication of components and specified goods used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged that these items were raw materials for capital goods, making the denial of credit unsustainable as per the definition of inputs.
5. Penalty: Regarding the penalty imposed for the denial of credit on welding electrodes, since the Larger Bench had already settled the issue, it was determined that the penalty was not warranted. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
6. The appeal was disposed of based on the above analysis, with the decisions on each issue outlined and the reasons for upholding or setting aside the denial of credit clearly stated.
-
2007 (11) TMI 476
Issues:
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on pharmaceutical goods sold to Government Hospitals; Assessment of assessable value based on dealer's price; Plea of time bar for the demand.
Waiver of Pre-Deposit of Duty and Penalty:
The judgment dealt with the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 58,63,318/- confirmed against the appellant for the clearance of pharmaceutical goods (sutures) to Government Hospitals through dealers between March 2001 and December 2004. The contention was that the duty should be paid based on the price at which goods were sold by dealers to hospitals, whereas the company had paid duty on the lower price at which it sold goods to the dealers. The Tribunal observed that the language of the contract indicated that the manufacturer was the one quoting rates, accepting tenders, and directly supplying goods to hospitals. The dealers were considered as agents entitled to remuneration, and their remuneration could not be classified as a trade discount. Therefore, the assessable value of goods for duty liability should be based on the price agreed between the manufacturer and the Government hospital. The Tribunal found no strong prima facie case for a total waiver of the demand based on these merits.
Plea of Time Bar:
Regarding the plea of time bar due to the show cause notice covering the period from March 2001 to December 2004, the Tribunal analyzed a letter dated 24-5-2000. The letter mentioned dispatching goods through dealers at the contracted price for supply to bulk consumers, who would then supply the products to the Government hospital and agency at the agreed price. The Tribunal noted that there was no indication in the letter that the goods would be sold to dealers for supply to Government agencies at a price lower than the contracted price. Thus, the Tribunal held that the submission claiming the demand was time-barred was not substantiated prima facie.
Decision and Directions:
After considering the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 15 Lakhs towards duty within 8 weeks, following which the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty would be dispensed with, and the recovery stayed pending the appeals. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to comply with this direction would lead to the vacation of stay and dismissal of appeals without prior notice. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, assessment of assessable value, and the plea of time bar in a detailed manner, providing a comprehensive analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case.
-
2007 (11) TMI 473
CENVAT credit - inputs, which were written off by the respondent as being unusable due to the reason that such spares were obsolete - Held that: - the Revenue has not produced any evidence that the said inputs/capital goods are not in the factory and nor there is any evidence to show that the said goods will not be used in future - credit need not be reversed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (11) TMI 472
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. P-I/344/2006 dated 23-11-2006.
Issue 1: Unjust Enrichment in Refund Cases
The appeal was taken up in the absence of the respondent. The department argued that the question of unjust enrichment arises in refund cases. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent, stating that the amount deposited during the investigation was in the nature of a pre-deposit and not payment of duty. The Commissioner held that as long as there is no unjust enrichment, the appellants are eligible for a refund. Citing relevant case laws, it was concluded that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply to such deposits. The excess amount deposited during the investigation, which was more than the duty liability determined later, should be refunded to the appellants instead of being credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Decision:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, stating that the law as laid down by higher judicial forums was correctly followed. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected.
-
2007 (11) TMI 471
Issues involved:
1. Setting aside of the demand of duty in respect of Cenvat credit availed on capital goods before use.
2. Non-imposition of penalty on clearances of samples without payment of duty.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Setting aside of duty demand on Cenvat credit for capital goods
The appeal concerns the demand of duty on Cenvat credit availed by the respondent on capital goods before use. The Revenue argued that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the law's provisions on credit availment for capital goods. The Authorized Representative contended that the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in force during credit availment, did not mandate capital goods to be in use, only in possession. The Tribunal found that Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, did not require capital goods to be in use, but only in possession, which the respondent complied with. Therefore, the appeal against this finding lacked merit, and the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision.
Issue 2: Non-imposition of penalty on sample clearances
Regarding the non-imposition of penalty on clearances of samples without duty payment, the adjudicating authority determined that the samples were cleared for customer approval, in small quantities, and had no commercial value. Since the duty was paid along with interest before the show cause notice, no penalty was imposed. This decision was supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a relevant case. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities' findings and concluded that the non-imposition of penalty was justified. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. The cross-objections filed by the respondent in support of the impugned order were also disposed of.
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on both issues, finding no grounds for interference. The appeal by the Revenue was rejected, and the cross-objections by the respondent were disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (11) TMI 469
Issues Involved:
Denial of Modvat/Cenvat credit on furnace oil used for processing and producing excisable goods on job work basis.
Analysis:
The appeal challenged the denial of Modvat/Cenvat credit to the respondent on furnace oil used for processing and producing excisable goods on a job work basis. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the impugned order-in-original, emphasizing the availability of Cenvat credit on furnace oil used for manufacturing both dutiable and exempted goods. The respondent utilized furnace oil, on which Cenvat credit was availed, for manufacturing CPC blue crude on job work basis for a principal manufacturer, clearing the resultant goods under challans without payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced a Tribunal decision in the case of Navsari Oil Products Ltd. v. CCE, emphasizing the permissibility of Modvat credit on inputs used for generating steam for manufacturing dutiable and exempted final products. Additionally, the decision in Jindal Polymers v. CCE was cited to support the availability of Modvat credit on inputs used for job work when the goods are cleared without duty payment to the parent manufacturer. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the Cenvat credit was admissible based on established legal precedents.
Upon reviewing the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings, it was noted that both lower authorities correctly applied the law as established by the Tribunal on the same issue. Consequently, the Tribunal found the decisions of the lower authorities to be correct and declined to interfere with them, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the consistency in the application of legal principles and precedents in determining the availability of Modvat/Cenvat credit on furnace oil used for manufacturing excisable goods on a job work basis.
-
2007 (11) TMI 467
Issues involved:
The eligibility of the appellant to avail Cenvat credit on TR-6 challan u/s 16-6-2005 for Goods Transport Agency services.
Summary:
Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat credit on TR-6 challan:
The appellant sought Cenvat credit on TR-6 challan for services from Goods Transport Agency. The denial was based on TR-6 not being duty paying documents until 16-6-2005. The Tribunal granted waiver due to a similar case precedent. The appellant availed Cenvat credit for service tax paid, similar to a previous case. The Commissioner held TR-6 as proper for credit, supported by Tribunal precedent. The Revenue reiterated their objection, but the appellate authority upheld TR-6 as the basis for credit. The Revenue did not specify an alternative document for credit during the relevant time. The issue was found in favor of the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.
-
2007 (11) TMI 465
Issues: Duty demand on destroyed electric storage batteries during quality control test.
Analysis:
1. The duty demand of Rs. 3,72,241/- on electric storage batteries destroyed during quality control testing and the penalty of Rs. 75,000/- imposed on the respondent were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading the revenue to appeal before the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal referred to the case of ITC Ltd. v. CCE, where the Supreme Court held that goods removed for quality control testing within factory premises are liable to excise duty, but the quantity destroyed during testing is not. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining and producing accounts related to destroyed goods during testing to determine duty liability.
3. The revenue's interpretation that duty is applicable even on destroyed batteries contradicts the Apex Court's decision. The judgment in CCE, Hyderabad v. Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd. further supported the exemption of duty on goods destroyed during quality control testing due to lack of proper account maintenance.
4. The Madras High Court decision in CCE, Madras v. Union Carbide India Ltd. was deemed irrelevant as it addressed a different issue, and the ITC judgment postdates the High Court decision.
5. Notably, the respondent had maintained accounts of all battery destruction during quality control testing, as confirmed in the impugned order.
6. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the revenue's appeal.
This detailed analysis highlights the legal principles applied, the precedents cited, and the importance of maintaining accurate records to determine duty liability on goods destroyed during quality control testing.
-
2007 (11) TMI 464
Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing exempted and dutiable goods.
Summary:
1. The Revenue appealed against Order-in-Appeal No. Pll/BKS/300/06, contending that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in allowing the respondent's appeal regarding the reversal of Cenvat credit on inputs used for manufacturing goods.
2. The Revenue argued that as per Rule 6(3), the appellant must pay 10% of the amount if no separate accounts are maintained for inputs used in exempted goods. The respondent cited precedents to support their case.
3. After considering submissions, it was found that the respondent used inputs for both exempted and dutiable goods without separate accounts. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on previous judgments and ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable.
4. Since the appellant had reversed the Cenvat credit on inputs for exempted products, the Tribunal found in favor of the respondent based on a previous decision in the case of Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited.
5. The impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected as it did not have any infirmity.
-
2007 (11) TMI 462
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal by setting aside penalties imposed under Rule 209A as no goods were found liable to confiscation. The penalties of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- on Smt. Vaishali Khanapurkar and Shri Mahesh C. Kadakia were overturned.
-
2007 (11) TMI 459
Issues:
1. Rectification of mistake apparent from the record in Final Order.
2. Allegation of ignoring written submissions.
3. Application of Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case.
Analysis:
1. The application sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order regarding the examination of the authorization letter for the appeal. The respondent alleged that the Bench did not properly review the letter before overruling their preliminary objection. The objection was based on the Revenue filing the appeal without a proper review of the impugned order. However, after examining the original record of proceedings, it was found that the grounds of the appeal were based on the Review Committee's findings, leading to the rejection of the objection. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record and dismissed the application.
2. Another alleged mistake was the Bench ignoring the written submissions of the applicant while passing the final order. The applicant failed to provide specific details or amplify this grievance. The Tribunal emphasized that for an error to be apparent from the record, the party must specify the submission that was overlooked. As the application did not provide any clear information regarding the ignored submissions, this issue was not substantiated.
3. The third mistake highlighted in the application was the incorrect application of the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in a specific case. The party argued that contrary High Court decisions should have been followed instead. However, no specific High Court decisions were mentioned in the application. The Tribunal noted that the Consultant cited various Tribunal decisions supporting the refund claim, but the decision in question was against them, leading to the appeal of the Revenue being allowed based on the Larger Bench decision. As no mistake was found in the final order, the application was dismissed by the Tribunal.
-
2007 (11) TMI 458
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Admissibility of Evidence - Computer print-outs - Held that: - The appellants had raised a legal issue to hold that the condition in Section 36B has not been fulfilled in respect of the retrieved computer printout and therefore, the same would not be admissible in evidence. Prima-facie, this contention of the appellant appears to be correct. Moreover, there is force in the contention of the appellants that the demands have been multiplied. No evidence has been produced for the receipt of huge quantity of raw materials required for production and clearance of Gutka/Panmasala involving duty of ₹ 137 crores. No investigation regarding finances required for such huge turnover has been done. There is no evidence of any seizure of cash. The production capacity is also a contentious issue. All these issues have to be examined only at the time of regular hearing. Presently, no definite finding regarding alleged evasion can be given - the recovery of the balance of duty and penalty is stayed till the disposal of the appeals.
-
2007 (11) TMI 457
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dismissed the appeal by the Revenue to add notional interest on advance received from customers to the assessable value of goods. The Tribunal found that the sale price of goods was the same for customers with and without security deposits, and there was no evidence that the deposits influenced the price.
-
2007 (11) TMI 435
Subsequent to order of the Tribunal, Circular No. 58/1/2002-CX. issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, - Counsel for the parties agree that keeping in view the said circular the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision - impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. All contentions are left open. appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 434
Classification - whether the criss-cross patches of vulcanized rubber manufactured by the appellant is classifiable under sub-heading 4008.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, as claimed by the Revenue or under sub-heading 4016.99 as claimed by the assessee appellant - Held that:- Order set aside and remanded matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for considering whether the process being followed by the manufactures, appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2007 (11) TMI 427
Evasion of tax - Penalty - it would show that the plea which they have taken before the authorities that ignorance of law cannot be diluted but it cannot be an excuse in law - Bona fide impression for ignorance of law - Penalty is reduced from Rs. 2,08,709 to Rs. 1 lac - Appeal is disposed of
-
2007 (11) TMI 424
Issues:
1. Justification of directing the appellant to pay interest on refund during a pending lis before appellate authorities.
Analysis:
The High Court heard the appeal challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order directing the appellant to pay interest on refund during a pending lis. The respondent filed a refund claim after CEGAT set aside duty levied upon them. The Deputy Commissioner sanctioned the refund but appropriated it towards other dues, which was later set aside by CEGAT. The key issue was determining the date of refund sanction - whether on 18-7-2000 or later due to CEGAT's remand order on 20th September 2000.
The High Court found that the Deputy Commissioner, as the adjudicating authority, held on 18-7-2000 that the assessee was entitled to the refund. Since the amount was appropriated for other dues, it was clear that the assessee would have received the refund immediately if there were no other dues. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the refund order should be considered effective from 30-1-2001, emphasizing that the refund was due to the assessee on 18-7-2000 itself.
Therefore, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal. The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the assessee was entitled to the refund from 18-7-2000, and there was no merit in the revenue's arguments.
............
|
9911796707
