|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 195 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1312
... ...
... ... ..... R The Appeals are admitted. List for hearing on its own turn.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1304
... ...
... ... ..... m dated 15th February, 2010, is made absolute till the disposal of the appeals.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1282
... ...
... ... ..... e other containing industrial estates, where new industrial units were shown to be entitled to the benefits of the said policy. It was contended that the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, has been included in Annexure III to the amended Notification, but inclusion of the petitioner’s industry in the said annexure was a mistake and, accordingly, the same is required to be corrected. Even assuming that what petitioner contends is correct and a pronouncement to that effect is made and as a result, the industrial estate, where the petitioner’s existing industry is located, is shifted to Annexure II, the petitioner would not get any relief, inasmuch as, being an existing industry the petitioner was required to expand and thereupon to commence production by 31st March, 2010, which the petitioner has not done. In these circumstances, there is nothing to be done in the writ petition. 5. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1272
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal was justified in holding that once full depreciation is claimed, the assessee is barred from availing modvat credit? (b) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the extended period of limitation had rightly been invoked?”
-
2010 (12) TMI 1259
Refund of the pre-deposit amount before CESTAT - rejection on the ground that the claim was belated, under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - contention of the petitioner herein is that being in the nature of pre-deposit, Section 11B of the Act could not be invoked and the return of deposit should be made in terms of Section 35F of the Act.
HELD THAT:- In terms of the circular dated 8-12-2004 and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in U.O.I. VERSUS SUVIDHE LTD. [1996 (8) TMI 521 - SC ORDER] confirming the view of the Bombay High Court in SUVIDHE LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (2) TMI 136 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the pre-deposit to maintain the appeal is not to be equated to the payment of duty to invite the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order now passed invoking Section 11B of the Act is unsustainable.
Going by the admitted fact that the pre-deposit was made in terms of Section 35F of the Act, the question of invoking Section 11B of the Act to reject the claim of the petitioner as time-barred, does not arise. As pointed out in the circular dated 2-1-2002, when the claim can be made even by a simple letter along with attested xerox copy of the order in appeal, the question of the Department further adjudicating the matter invoking Section 11A of the Act, hence, does not arise. The Circulars of the Board are binding on the respondents who have the responsibility of respecting the same. More so, in the context of the decision of the Apex Court, the question of re-agitating the issue now does not arise. In the circumstances, accepting the case of the petitioner, the writ petitions are allowed.
The respondents are directed to refund the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of order along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of the order till the date of payment - Petition allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1251
... ...
... ... ..... their location. Therefore, on the ground of discrimination, as such, there is no scope of interference in the matter. o p /o p 5. We, accordingly, close the matter, but, however, before doing so, having noted the judgment of this Court dated 3rd March 2005, which has reached finality, we are of the view that the petitioner was entitled to know from the Central Government of the result of the consideration by the Central Government of the representation of the petitioner made pursuant to the said order of this Court and the same, having not yet been received, we ask the Central Government to make the same available to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon Revenue Secretary, Government of India. We make it absolutely clear that, although there are pleadings to the effect that the petitioner has made substantial expansion in terms of the policy in question, but we have not gone into that aspect of the matter. o p /o p
-
2010 (12) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... s such as the manufacturer's brochure / literature on the product, trade parlance, etc. We are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's recent judgment in N.I. Systems case (supra), wherein their Lordships elaborately examined the features / attributes of various equipments, including programmable process controllers and programmable logic controllers and classified the goods in question under CTH 9032 90 00, after taking into account the relevant tariff schedule provisions and HSN Explanatory Notes, would be of considerable aid to the lower appellate authority in taking correct decision. 10. Therefore, without taking any view on the rival contentions, we set aside the impugned orders and allow these appeals by way of remand with a request to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in terms of this order, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (Pronounced in Court on 29/12/2010)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1182
Area based exemption - N/N. 11/2007-C.E., dated 1-3-2007 and No. 21/2007-C.E., dated 25-4-2007 - setting up of industrial unit in Northeastern Region - N/N. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999.
Held that: - By a legislative mandate, the N/Ns. 32/99-C.E. and 33/99-C.E., dated 8-7-1999 corresponding to G.S.R. 508(E) and G.S.R. 509(E) stood amended retrospectively in the manner as specified in the Ninth Schedule with the predication that notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree, or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority, any action taken or anything done or purported to have been taken or done under the said notifications would be deemed to be and always to have been, for all purposes, as validly and effectively taken or done as if those notifications as amended had been in force at all material times. Sub-section (4) of that section also authorised recovery of all amounts of duty or interest or other charges which have not been collected or refunded but which ought to have been collected and ought not to have been refunded had the new section been enforced at all material times within a period as specified therein.
the challenge to the notifications dated 1-3-2007 and 25-4-2007 based on Policy 1997 cannot be sustained. A contrary intention being apparent from Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003 read with Schedule 9 thereto as well as the notifications issued after the Policy 1997 curtailing/regulating from time to time the exemptions from payment of excise duty as contemplated by the said Policy, I am of the unhesitant opinion that the petitioner too is not entitled to any protection under Section 38A of the Act.
There is no discernible conflict in the approach of the Respondent authorities in promulgating the policy, 2007 or issuing the impugned notification. No mala fide or extraneous consideration is also decipherable.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1175
... ...
... ... ..... legal and proper especially when there exists no provisions in the Cenvat Credit Rules, which allows transitional Cenvat Credit on capital goods? 3. Perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the Assessee by following its decision in the case of Ace Timez vs CCE, Bangalor reported in 2004 (170) ELT 371 (Tri.Bang.). The learned counsel for the Appellant brought to our notice that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of ACE Timez (supra) has been over ruled by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Spenta International Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane reported in 2007(216) ELT 133 (Tri.LB). In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 3rd December 2009 passed in Appeal No.E/1076/08Mum is quashed and set aside and the said appeal is restored to file of the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 4. This Appeal is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1172
... ...
... ... ..... I agree with the learned SDR s argument that this is not a fit case that should have been remanded by the lower appellate authority. As such the impugned order is set aside to the extent of the order being appealed against and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for decision by himself. He may, however, await decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on the issue which is subjudice before the said High Court. The appeal of the department is thus allowed by way of remand to the lower appellate authority. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1158
... ...
... ... ..... would have felt bound by it'. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Mercury Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, 2000 119 STC 271 All, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that the Circular issued by the Commissioner, Sales Tax was binding upon the assessing authority and, therefore, the writ petition would be maintainable on the show cause notice. The issue requires consideration whether on bagasse, any duty can be charged and whether Rule 6 would be applicable for the purpose of charging duty. In view of the Circulars issued by the Board of Directors and thereafter by the Chief Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the authorities would not be in a position to take a view against the aforesaid circulars. We, therefore, stay further proceedings in the matter in pursuance of the notices impugned dated 24.9.2010 and 27.9.2010, till the next date of listing.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1156
Refund claim - Although the Tribunal has rejected the claim for refund, it appears that in compliance of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) the refund was granted and thereafter proceedings were initiated for recovering the amount paid by way of refund - whether the order of the Tribunal deserves to be stayed during the pendency of the appeal? - Held that: - If the order impugned in the appeal is not stayed, then the petitioners would be required to return the amount already refunded to them. In that event, the cenvat credit deleted on account of refund granted, would have to be restored and the Appellants would be entitled to utilize the said credit on paying excise duty on domestic clearances, even during the pendency of the Appeal. Thus, it is a case of revenue neutral - it would be just and proper to stay the operation of the impugned order passed by the CESTAT dated 8th July 2010 and hear the Appeal on merits expeditiously - matter on remand.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1155
Penalty u/s 11AC - whether the Tribunal is justified in reducing the penalty to 25% of the duty leviable on the respondent? - Held that: - The decision of the Tribunal is in consonance with the principles enunciated by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industries, [2010 (2) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], wherein, the Court has inter-alia held that as far as statutory obligation of the Adjudicating Authority is concerned, the Central Excise Department itself has issued Circular on 22-5-2008 wherein it is clarified that in all cases wherein penalty under Section 11AC of the Act is imposed the provisions contained in the first and second proviso to Section 11AC should be mandatorily mentioned in the order-in-original itself by the adjudicating authority. It is, therefore, not open for the revenue to agitate this issue before the Court in contradiction of the Circular issued by the Central Excise Department - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1154
... ...
... ... ..... e appellants invoking Section 73 are not maintainable. 9. In view of what has been stated in L.H. Sugar's case (supra) we do not find any merit in the of present appeals which are accordingly dismissed." ( 9. ) IN view of the aforesaid decision, there was no liability to file return under Section 70 by the petitioner for Goods Transport Operators Services received by the petitioner for the period running from 16th November, 1997 to 1st July, 1998, as the petitioner has already deposited the tax on 16th March, 2002, 12th April. 2002 and 8th October, 2002, total of which comes to ₹ 2,95,14,899.21 paise. There is, thus, no question of the petitioner's liability to make payment of interest on the aforesaid amount whatsoever. We, therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Ranchi dated 10/11th January, 2003 at Annexure -9 to the memo of petition. ( 10. ) THIS writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1150
Levy of service tax - Training or coaching services - issuance of certificate or diploma or degree to the students recognized by law - Held that: - the service tax in respect of the training and coaching provided by the appellants which for an essential part of a course or curriculum of a university, leading to issuance of certificate or diploma or degree to the students recognized by law is not justified, even though the same is obtained by the students of the institution run by the appellants through Distance Education Programme - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1148
... ...
... ... ..... RDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1145
... ...
... ... ..... aking credit of the services on which service tax is leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act and in this case the service has been held not liable to be taxed hence there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same has to be upheld. 5. Heard and considered. 6. On careful examination of the submission made by both the sides, I find that in this case the appellant has paid service tax on availment of its services against the service tax paid invoices. It is also admitted fact that whether the impugned service is taxable or not is to be decided at the end of service provider and not at the end of service receiver. In that event, if any service availed by the appellant against service tax paid invoices, the appellant is entitled to take input service credit on the same as held by this Tribunal in the case of Caborandum Universal Ltd (supra). Hence I do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1144
Interest- The respondent had been paying the duty in terms of the value arrived at on the date of payment of duty. However, the appellant, by contending that there, was a delay in payment of duty on account of variation in price, issued a show cause notice by demanding interest and penalty on the delayed payment of duty for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004. Adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the demand. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal before the tribunal which was allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1143
SSI Exemption – Brand name of another – Lawful consent and assignment – exemption under notification not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name whether registered or not of another person except in the cases specified - appellants' case does not fall in any of the exception.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1142
... ...
... ... ..... 7; 1.25 lakhs. Many of the arguments put forward by the counsel today with reference to the applicability of Sec. 3 of the Central Excise Act to the DTA clearances were not taken in the replies to the show-cause notices. Going by the replies, one can decipher the inclination of the appellants to pay duty to the extent of ₹ 1.25 crores on the DTA clearances in question for the period of dispute, given the benefit of cum-duty value. We have also noted that, in the Memorandum of appeal, the appellants have worked out altogether an amount of duty (Rs. 64.14 lakhs). But in respect of this figure, their application for amendment is on record and hence we do not discuss further on this aspect at this juncture. 10. In the result, the appellants are directed to pre-deposit ₹ 1.25 crores (Rupees One Crore twenty five lakhs). In the absence of financial hardships, they should make the deposit within 4 weeks. 11. Report compliance on 7-2-2011. (Pronounced in court)
........
|
