|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 2676 Records
-
2007 (11) TMI 95
CG credit – impugned machinery even if received in Jan-Feb. 2000 but installed only in F.Y 2000-01 so the unit never actually worked under the compounded levy scheme – as per circular B/4/7/2000, appellant is eligible to take 50% of CG credit during F.Y 2000-01
-
2007 (11) TMI 94
Issues:
1. Refund claims rejection related to accumulated CENVAT credit.
2. Interpretation of the term "manufacture" for the purpose of export.
3. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions.
4. Apex Court's interpretation of processes amounting to manufacture.
5. Denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
6. Applicability of Circulars and Notifications.
7. Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit.
Issue 1: Refund claims rejection related to accumulated CENVAT credit
The impugned order upheld the rejection of two refund claims totaling above Rs.12 lakhs, pertaining to accumulated CENVAT credit of M/s. Bala Handlooms Export Company (BHEC) for the last quarter of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005. The denial was based on the ground that the appellants had not undertaken any manufacturing process on the purchased fabrics, which were later exported after various operations.
Issue 2: Interpretation of the term "manufacture" for the purpose of export
The appellants argued that the definition of manufacture for export purposes was broader, citing the Exim Policy's interpretation that certain processes, not considered manufacturing under Central Excise Law, would qualify as manufacture for export. However, the lower authorities and the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the appellants had not undertaken any process amounting to manufacture on the fabrics before export.
Issue 3: Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions
The appellants referenced a Tribunal decision in CCE vs. Weston Electronics, where export packing was considered as constituting manufacture for the purpose of granting benefits on imports. However, the original authority followed the Apex Court's decision in CCE Vs. Maharashtra Fur Fabrics Ltd., which emphasized specific processes akin to manufacturing for determining eligibility for refunds.
Issue 4: Apex Court's interpretation of processes amounting to manufacture
The Apex Court's interpretation of processes like bleaching, dyeing, printing, and others under specific notifications was crucial in determining whether the appellants had subjected the purchased fabrics to any manufacturing process. The Court's focus on the specific expressions and their relevance to manufacturing processes guided the decision to deny the refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules.
Issue 5: Denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules
The denial of the refund was primarily based on the finding that the appellants had not undertaken any manufacturing process on the purchased fabrics before export. This decision was in line with the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, which govern the refund of accumulated credit in specific circumstances.
Issue 6: Applicability of Circulars and Notifications
The appellants and the lower authorities referred to Circulars and Notifications to support their arguments regarding the broader interpretation of manufacturing processes for export benefits. However, the Tribunal clarified that these references were not directly relevant to the dispute at hand, emphasizing the specific legal definitions and interpretations applicable in this case.
Issue 7: Eligibility for refund of accumulated CENVAT credit
After considering all submissions and legal provisions, the Tribunal found that the appellants, as manufacturer-exporters, were eligible for the refund of accumulated CENVAT credit claimed. The decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant legal positions, including the provisions of Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, leading to the allowance of the appeal and granting of the refund.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai, in the cited case of 2007, addressed various legal issues related to the rejection of refund claims concerning accumulated CENVAT credit. The detailed analysis covered interpretations of manufacturing processes for export, comparisons with previous Tribunal decisions, the Apex Court's stance on processes amounting to manufacture, denial of refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, the applicability of Circulars and Notifications, and the ultimate eligibility for the refund of accumulated credit. The decision highlighted the importance of specific legal definitions and provisions in determining the appellants' entitlement to the refund, ultimately allowing the appeal and granting the refund.
-
2007 (11) TMI 68
Non-payment of duty by principal manufacturer on job-worked goods – Demand, interest & penalty raised on job worker is unjustified as he has duly complied with procedural requirements of relevant Not. 214/06 – Interest can be raised on principle manufacturer only for belatedly payment of duty
-
2007 (11) TMI 67
Dept. found that cutting/slitting of aluminum foil is not manufacture – Credit sought to be reversed – Held that even if duty wasn’t payable on final good (there being no manufacture), there was no question of recovery of credit, having been utilized towards payment of duty – Assessee appeal allowed
-
2007 (11) TMI 66
Assessee brought back finished goods from buyers for reconditioning & returned back after reconditioning u/r 173H – No violation of provision of Rule 173(1)(a) to (c) with intention to avoid payment of duty – In view of SC order in another case, impugned order of no clandestine removal is upheld
-
2007 (11) TMI 65
Broken biscuits recycled and used in manufacturing of fresh biscuits – No duty arise on broken biscuits as they were captively consumed & covered under exemption Not. 67/95 – Benefit of notification cannot be denied mere on technical fault of non-maintenance of proper accounts.
-
2007 (11) TMI 62
Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeals, condonation of delay, service of adjudication order, authority to receive documents, jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Analysis:
The petitioners, ex-directors of a company engaged in manufacturing, received show-cause notices for Central Excise duty recovery and penalties. The Commissioner adjudicated the case, imposing penalties and confirming the duty demand. Due to an arbitration award, the petitioners were unaware of the adjudication order until May 2002, when they requested a certified copy. They filed appeals within the limitation period, but faced objections regarding delay, claiming they had no involvement in the company's affairs post-July 2001. The Tribunal rejected their delay condonation applications, stating the order was served at the factory's address. However, the High Court found that the service on the factory's authorized signatory did not constitute service on the petitioners, as they had not authorized anyone to receive the order on their behalf. The Court held that the department should have served the order on the petitioners directly. Consequently, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for a decision on merits.
Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeals on their merits in accordance with the law. The parties were to bear their own costs in the case.
-
2007 (11) TMI 61
Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of credit based on dealer registration status.
Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, received inputs from dealers during a specific period and claimed duty credit based on dealer-issued invoices. The original authority disallowed credit for invoices from unregistered dealers, citing a circular's requirement for dealer registration by a certain date. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant argued that non-registration was a technical omission and relied on legal precedents supporting their case. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding dealer registration. The Tribunal considered Rule 57H of the Central Excise Rules, which allowed certain documents for Modvat credit until a specified date. The Tribunal referenced a High Court judgment emphasizing the eligibility of documents issued by unregistered dealers before a specific date. However, the Tribunal noted that the High Court ruling dealt with delayed registration, while the present case involved no registration proof. As no evidence of dealer registration was provided, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision.
-
2007 (11) TMI 60
Pre-polished cement concrete tiles – In appellant’s own case, apex court held that impugned goods will be considered as ‘floorings’ not ‘floor coverings’ – So in present case duty at 20% advalorem in term of Sl. No. 2 of table annexed to Not. 36/94 is payable not at 30% advalorem under Sl. No. 1(c).
-
2007 (11) TMI 59
Sec. 11B Central Excise Act provides that period of limitation is not to apply where duty is deposited under protest – Incidence of duty has not been passed so retention of such amount by dept. would be non-accordance with provisions of Article of Constitution – Refund allowed.
-
2007 (11) TMI 58
Appellant get Exhaust systems mfd. on job work – Because of price variation of inputs, job worker paid differential duty by raising supplementary invoices on appellant – Credit taken by appellant of this diff. duty on strength of these suppl. invoices cannot be denied by invoking Rule 7(1)(b) CCR
-
2007 (11) TMI 57
Goods imported and took credit of CVD paid on basis of photocopy of ‘courier B/E’ – As goods were imported by 4-5 importers, original documents might not be available to all importers – So photocopy of B/E cannot be said invalid documents to avail credit – Credit allowed
-
2007 (11) TMI 54
There is no requirement to pass any order extending stay when stay has already been granted – Stay granted would remain valid till the final disposal of the appeal – Serving demand notices during pendency will be treated as contempt of the law, warranting proceedings against the Dept
-
2007 (11) TMI 53
Issues:
- Locus standi of the present appellant to file an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act.
- Interpretation of the phrase "person aggrieved" under the Central Excise Law.
- Whether the present appellant has legal standing to challenge an order passed by the Revenue authorities demanding duty from its assessee.
- Application of Section 12B of the Central Excise Act in determining legal rights of the appellant.
- Impact of granting leave to file appeal on the tax administration and economic health of the nation.
Analysis:
1. Locus Standi of Present Appellant: The Tribunal had earlier concluded that the present appellant lacked locus standi to file an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against ONGC. This decision was based on the fact that the appellant was not a party in the proceedings before the authorities below.
2. Interpretation of "Person Aggrieved": The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay emphasized the need for the appellant to seek leave from the Tribunal to file an appeal, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. The appellant cited various judgments to support the contention that a person aggrieved, even if not a party to the proceeding, can file an appeal.
3. Legal Standing of Present Appellant: The Revenue authorities argued that the present appellant had no right to appeal against the Departmental order directed at its assessee, ONGC. They contended that the appellant was not recognized under the Central Excise law, had no liabilities or rights, and thus lacked locus standi.
4. Application of Section 12B: The appellant claimed to be an "aggrieved person" as the duty was wrongly levied on goods bought from ONGC. However, the Tribunal clarified that under the law, the manufacturer is primarily responsible for duty payment, and the appellant, not being an assessee, had no legal rights or obligations.
5. Impact of Granting Leave: Granting leave to file an appeal to the appellant was deemed detrimental to the tax administration and economic health of the nation. Allowing individuals not recognized under the Central Excise law to challenge Revenue decisions would disrupt revenue collection and fiscal administration.
6. Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the appellant did not have legal standing to file an appeal as they were not recognized under the law and did not suffer any legal grievance. The judgments cited by the appellant did not support their claim, and granting leave would set a precedent detrimental to tax administration. The appeal was disposed of without delving into the merits of the matter.
-
2007 (11) TMI 52
Demand raised on account of Clandestine removal on basis of loading slips recovered from the transporter’s premises & statement of partner – Investigation regarding ships not made by dept. at buyer’s end so benefit of doubt gods in favor of assessee – Impugned order is set aside
-
2007 (11) TMI 50
Scrap removed to sister unit on payment of duty on its transfer price – Pursuant to proceeding by dept. assessee paid duty in terms of Rule 8, C.E.(Valuation) Rules – Held that whatever duty paid was availed by its sister unit, hence no evasion involved – Penalty is unjustified as revenue is neutral
-
2007 (11) TMI 49
No duty can be demanded on basis of probability of clandestine removal –, Dept. is needed to prove actual clearance with mathematical precision –– But appeal by dept. cannot be held non-maintainable on the ground that appeal against co-notice is absent
-
2007 (11) TMI 48
Benefit of Exemption Not. 30/04 cannot be denied to appellants on the ground that credit of duty paid on inputs has been taken, if appellants have reversed the credit at the time of clearance - Once the credit taken on inputs had been reversed it could be said that no such credit had been availed
-
2007 (11) TMI 47
Final product was diverted to DTA by 100%EOU – So exemption under Not. 125/84 is not available, duty & interest payable on clandestinely removed goods – Goods liable for confiscation & penalty - Here duty will be paid on final product so demand on duty free inputs is unjustified
-
2007 (11) TMI 46
Arrangement of supply of inputs to job worker without taking permission from Dept. – Such procedural lapse did not involve any loss of Revenue to Govt. – Moreover Dept. already known to such irregularities – Larger period not invokable in SCN to raise demand
............
|
9911796707
