|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 195 of 195 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 77 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - twice payment of duty - assessee filed a refund claim for the amount of duty (Rs. 5,87,157/-) which was paid in November-December, 2006 on the ground that they paid duty on the same goods twice. - held that: - the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) examined the records and established correlation between the goods on which duty was paid in November-December, 06 by the respondent and the goods which was sold on payment of duty in March, 2007. The present appeal of the Revenue does not contain any material to enable this tribunal to disturb the correlation established by the lower appellate authority. - Though refund is allowable, matter remanded back to reconsider the issue of unjust enrichment.
-
2010 (12) TMI 76 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Classification - Mittavin capsule, Vitamin A chewable tablets, Rovigon tablets, Ascorbic acid chewable tablets, Becozym C Forte tablets, Vitaminets Forte tablets, Supradyn tablets, Benadon tablets etc - Patent or Proprietary medicaments under SH 3003.10 - classifiable under SH 2936.00 of the said Schedule as pro-vitamins and vitamins and intermixtures of the same - Held that: - the lower appellate authority followed certain decisions of this Tribunal which were either overruled or reversed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the decision in Ranbaxy Labs case, which was followed by the Commissioner, was reversed by the apex court in a civil appeal filed by the assessee - appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 75 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Registered dealer - Change in address of registered premises - Held that: - change in the address is of a ground of shifting of the business premises of the appellants, which has been duly intimated to the department and there is no allegation of any manipulation in respect of the impugned goods and documents issued for the same
-
2010 (12) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty – Wrong availment - non existent/fake/bogus credit – Held that: - On a plain reading of rule 13 (2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, it is apparent that the same can be invoked in a case, where the CENVAT credit has been taken or utilized wrongly on account of fraud, willful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty, in which case the manufacturer would be liable to pay penalty in terms of section 11AC of the Act. Thus, a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of sub-rule (2) of rule 13 of the Rules there should be a finding to the effect that the manufacturer has taken or wrongly utilized the CENVAT credit on account of fraud, willful mis-statement, collusion or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty. evidence in record is not sufficient to conclude that the assessee is a party to the fraud. It has also been recorded that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority that there is suppression of facts with intent to avail wrong credit is based on conjectures and surmise and not on solid evidence. On behalf of the revenue, nothing has been pointed out to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the appellate authorities. In the light of the aforesaid concurrent findings of fact recorded by both, the Commissioner [Appeals] as well as the Tribunal, it is apparent that the conditions precedent for invoking the provisions of rule 13 (2) of the Rules are clearly not satisfied
-
2010 (12) TMI 67 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Duty on samples - samples drawn for testing purpose - captive testing without removal from factory premises - held that: - as per Chapter 11 of CBEC Manual para 3.3 the appellants are not required to pay duty on such samples which they have drawn from the finished goods manufactured by them for testing purposes - In the case of captive consumption, the goods manufactured captively are to be used further for manufacturing the final product but it is not in the case of samples drawn and retained in the factory. As per the CBEC Manual it has been clarified that duty shall be payable when the samples have gone for testing. In the event when the samples are retained by them in their factory the appellants are not liable to pay duty. - The same view has been confirmed by the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Dabur India Ltd. (2005 -TMI - 49012 - NEW DELHI)
-
2010 (12) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of bulk drugs - SCN issued to show cause as to why duty should not be recovered in respect of the controlled samples cleared within the factory for testing and why penalty should not be imposed upon the assessee - assessee contended that the samples were not removed outside the factory but were drawn by the in house lab ratory within the factory premises and were actually consumed during the process of testing itself and, therefore, no excise duty was leviable on the controlled samples drawn for testing - Held that: - samples are consumed / destroyed within the factory during the process of testing - appeal is dismissed by answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
2010 (12) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cenvat/Modvat credit on inputs - on the basis of the Bills of Entry under which they were imported and which contained the declaration that the imported inputs were to be used in the factory of the appellants - Tribunal holding that the Bill of Entry not sufficient for the purpose of appellants availing the Cenvat Credit - Held that: - decision of this Court in Margmagao Steel Ltd. V/s. Union of India reported in 2005 - the matter needs reconsideration - appeal is disposed of accordingly
-
2010 (12) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Compounded levy are framed under the Central Excise Act, 1944 - CESTAT holding that the provisions of section 11B do not apply to the scheme of compounded levy - Held that: - Tribunal in its judgment dated 10/04/2006 in the case of Shivagrico Implements Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 55 (Tri.-LB) has held that the provisions of Section 11B applies to the scheme of compounded levy - set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the adjudicating authority to decide the question afresh - appeal is disposed off accordingly
-
2010 (12) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Finished Goods - Entry in RG 1 registered - when goods required to be entered in RG 1 - whether confirmation is required from the buyer before entry in RG 1 register - Held that: - the CESTAT has disposed of the Appeal on a ground which was not urged by the Respondents before the Adjudicating Authority. Thereby the CESTAT has disposed of the Appeal on a totally new ground which was not before the Adjudicating Authority and which would entail a finding on facts. If the CESTAT was not satisfied with the approach of the Adjudicating Authority, the least it could have done, was remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority but could not have assumed to itself the jurisdiction to decide the Appeal on a ground which was not urged before the lower authorities
-
2010 (12) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund of excise duty - paying duty by mistake under tariff item 26AA(ia) and the mistake was discovered after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise and others Vs. M/s Calcutta Steel Industries and others [1988 -TMI - 42375 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Held that: - The amount of duty paid under mistake is liable to be refunded - said prayer was declined on the ground that the matter was pending before Hon'ble the Supreme Court – Held that: - in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India and others [1996 -TMI - 44411 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. In any case, since the petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition may not be considered on merits. In view of the above, petitioners having not taken alternative remedy of filing the appeal, these writ petitions are dismissed without prejudice to the alternative remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
-
2010 (12) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT
Modvat / Cenvat credit - credit on petroleum products - Rule 57B - Held that: - the appellant-assessee is entitled to take credit in respect of the petroleum products used by them in the generation of electricity as inputs for the amount actually paid on account of specified duty upto 2nd June, 1998 and thereafter @ 95% of the duty paid - Jindal Poly Films Ltd. vs. CCE (2006 -TMI - 47612 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)
-
2010 (12) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
SSI Exemption - Clubbing - User of brand name - Aggregate value of turnover - The flavours are researched and developed by PEL, but were allowed to be manufactured by the appellant with the code names given by PEL. The flavours are used in the manufacture of beverages like Gold Spot, Limca, Rimzim etc. - Held that: - three companies in question were intertwined in their operation and management - Therefore it would likely seem that the purported fragmentation of the manufacturing process was but a mere ploy to avail of the SSI exemption. Piercing the corporate veil, when the notions of beneficial ownership and interdependency come into the picture, are no longer res integra. - turnover to be clubbed. Regarding brand names, The appellant herein manufactures flavours which fall within the ambit of the code names' and it is a fact on record that these codes are key to identifying the flavours which are commercially transferable. - Since the appellant was not the owner of the said brand names in question, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption
-
2010 (12) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT
SSI Exemption - Use of brand name of 'TATA' alongwith with own brand namd 'ACE' on cover assembly as "TATA ACE" - Held that: - in order to avail of the benefit of the exemption notification, the assessee must establish that his product is not associated with some other person. To put it differently, if it is shown that the assessee has affixed the brand name of another person on his goods with the intention of indicating a connection between the assessee's goods and the goods of another person, using such name or mark, then the assessee would not be entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. We may hasten to clarify that if the assessee is able to satisfy the Adjudicating Authority that there was no such intention, or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous, it would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption. the brand name "TATA" did not belong to the assessee. It is also evident that by using the said brand name, the assessee had not only intended to indicate a connection between the goods manufactured by them and a Tata Company; but also the quality of their product as that of a product of Tata Company, as they were supplying their goods to the said company. Thus, the bar created in Clause 4 read with Explanation IX of the Notification is clearly attracted in the present case, disentitling the assessee from the benefit of the exemption notifications under consideration. We are of the opinion that the decision of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
-
2010 (12) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - Sale through related parties - normal value - penalty for short payment - Section 4 and 11AC - of CEA, 1944 and The Revenue contends that an obvious corollary to this is that the freight charges so arising between the factory gate of the assessee and the place of removal at the depot of the related person should constitute the value of the goods for the purposes of computation of excise duty. It further contends that since, the `place of removal' is not the assessee's factory gate but rather the depot of the related person, the price is known, only at the price at which goods are sold to whole sellers by the related person. - Held that: - contention of the respondent (manufacturer) that it is justified in claiming exclusion of freight charges arising between the factory gate of the respondent to the depot of the related person, cannot be sustained - order of tribunal reversed - decided in favor of revenue. Regarding penalty u/s 11AC - It is well settled that when the statutes create an offence and an ingredient of the offence is a deliberate attempt to evade duty either by fraud or misrepresentation, the statute requires `mens rea' as a necessary constituent of such an offence. But when factually no fraud or suppression or mis- statement is alleged by the revenue against the respondent in the show cause notice the imposition of penalty under Section 11 AC is wholly impermissible.
-
2010 (12) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT
Modvat / Cenvat Credit - export - availment of credit while claiming duty drawback - credit availed after filing declaration in Form AR4 - The Revenue alleged that the assessee vide declarations in Form AR4 dated 4.8.1998, 17.8.1998 and 22.8.1998 had exported certain quantity of fabrics in its own account, and in the said AR4s had declared that the assessee had manufactured the fabric as mentioned in AR4, and that the benefit of Modvat under Rule 57A has not been availed, and also that it had not availed the facilities under Rule 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(b) of the Rules, and that export was made in discharge of export obligation under "advance licence" file. - assessee contended before this Court that it had taken credit of the duty on indigenous inputs only after the replenishment arrived. That is to say, the assessee had not claimed Modvat credit at the time the declarations under the advance license scheme were filed, but only later. - Held that: - The imported inputs were primarily stock replenishments that were used in the execution of other orders, and allowing the assessee to claim Modvat credit on the indigenous input would tantamount to giving a benefit twice for the same process that began with the manufacture and culminated in the export of the specified goods. The assessee cannot be held to be not entitled to claiming Modvat credit on finished goods where duty is not incident. Any attempt to avail it subsequently, casts serious aspersions on the bonafide intention of the assessee. The argument of the assessee that action had to be taken under the Duties Drawback Rules, 1971 and not through reversal of credit does not bear merit. The reversal of credit is meant to deny the assessee of a benefit that they would have otherwise enjoyed without justification. The drawback equivalent to CVD is legitimately permissible vide the process of AR4 declarations and thus, it is the benefit that is enjoyed without justifiable basis that has to be reversed. - Decided in favor of revenue
....
|
