|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 195 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 561 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Application for stay - Demand - Suppression of facts - Merely because declaration was filed on 3-12-99 which did not disclose the correct facts that would not prohibit the department from invoking the extended period of limitation, once it is revealed in the course of investigation that the facts disclosed in the declaration were not correct and there was a case of clandestine removal of the product - in the absence of prima facie case and taking into consideration overall conduct of the appellants in the matter, there is no case made out for waiver of duty - The clear observations of the adjudicating authority in this regard are that though it is claimed that amount of Rs. 53,500/- was deposited, the TR-6, which was produced by the appellants, related merely to a sum of Rs. 47,500/- and did not indicate that the same was relating to perfumed hair oil cleared during the period from June, 1998 to August, 1998, which is the relevant period - Decided against the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 555 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Classification - RVT Silicone Sealants under CET sub-heading 3214.00 as fillers - the lower appellate authority has relied upon the Chemical Examiner’s report that the product silicon polymer sealant, having approx. 50 to 65 of fillers, does not have binding properties in order to classify it as an adhesive and that the product under reference may be considered as mastics based on plastics under Chapter Heading 32.14 - Note that subsequent to the period in dispute in the present appeal, which is July 2000 to February 2001, the department itself has been classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 32 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 549 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waiver of pre-deposit of service tax - Inputs are used in the manufacture of exempted goods - invoices were in the name of the Head Office and not in the name of the plant - find that a prima facie case for waiver has been made out in the light of the submissions that digging of pits in the plant of the assessees was for the purpose of dumping the waste which was generated in the course of manufacture of the final product “Denatured Ethyl Alcohol”, and the fact that waste decomposes into ‘Biogas’ which is further used in the manufacture of ‘Bio-compost fertilizer’, which is an exempted commodity, does not take away the fact that the service was in relation to the business of manufacture of the assessee’s final product, ‘Denatured Ethyl Alcohol - prima facie only a procedural lapse for which credit cannot be denied - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 537 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Waiver of pre-deposit - cenvat credit - Goods send to job work - contention of the revenue that the clearances of tubes made by the applicant to the job worker cannot be under the job worker provisions but under the provisions of clearance of input as such i.e., Rule 3(5) wherein the applicant has availed the benefit of Rule 4(5)(a) - Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 reproduced that input as such can be sent for manufacture of intermediate goods, which are necessary for manufacture of final products, and it is not in dispute that the intermediate product i.e., oil cooler, heat exchanger were used/consumed by the applicant in his factory premises for manufacture of oil lubricating systems - If that be so, it cannot be pressed upon the assessee by the revenue to resort to only the provisions of Rule 3(5) and direct them to reverse cenvat credit - Hence, applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand and penalty - Cenvat credit on inputs - job worker - Since, the assessees took credit only of duty paid, first by them on the ‘plastic components’ and then of the duty paid by the job worker on the painted inputs - The job worker had an option either to pay duty or clear the processed inputs without payment of duty under a challan in terms of Notification No. 214/86 - This is not a case where any double benefit has accrued to the assessees for the reason that they had taken credit only of duty paid on inputs and of duty paid on processed goods - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 496 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Notification No. 5/2006-C.E., dated 14-3-2006 - Time limitation - the mention of TR-6 challan as the tax paying document instead of GAR-7 is so minor that credit paying documents cannot be treated as incomplete for this reason when the column for name and address for input service provider was left blank, the assessee himself was the service provider and only in the event of provision of service by another person, it becomes incumbent on the part of the assessee to show their name and address and registration particulars - Decided in the favour of the assessee by way of remand to the adjudicating authority
-
2010 (12) TMI 491 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Exemption - Increase in installed capacity - Substantial expansion - Additional investment in plant and machinery in modernization - In order to increase the capacity, respondent modified its existing furnace by increasing its length from 70 ft. to 120 ft. - The Board’s Circular dated 21st January, 2004 must be read as a whole -while using the word ‘additional plant and machinery’, it was not insisted that the existing plant and machinery should remain - The said clarification, which also uses the words “additional investment in plant and machinery in modernization”, read with the other part of the Circular, makes it abundantly clear that the additional plant and machinery, mentioned therein, is not in addition to the existing, but signifies something new brought-in in the manufacturing process, which in turn, increases the capacity - Tribunal concluded that by making modification of the already existing machinery, since the installed capacity has been increased by-more than 25%, respondent was entitled to the benefits.
-
2010 (12) TMI 489 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Natural Justice - The appeal is taken up on the point violation of principle of natural justice as the first authority while adjudicating the matter did not allow to cross-examine the persons whose evidence and/or statements were said to have been relied on - In spite of this point being taken it has come to our notice that the learned Tribunal has not dealt with on this aspect - Hence, the Tribunal should have scrupulously examined whether the deposition of the witnesses was relied on by the first authority while passing order of adjudication - At the outset the appellant asked for cross-examination of those persons or even if it is not asked, whether the first authority offered to the appellant for cross-examination of those persons ought to have been looked into. Held that: direct the Tribunal to decide afresh firstly after making an enquiry whether statement and/or deposition of any person or persons was relied on by the first authority in decision making process, secondly, whether the appellant was given a chance to cross-examine either on request or without any request.
-
2010 (12) TMI 487 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Clandestine manufacture - The Central Excise officers during physical verification of the stock of raw materials while conducting preventive checks at the factory premises of the assessee, found shortage of 9975 kgs. HD as compared to the stock shown in RG-23A, Part-I Register - it is apparent that except for the shortage in raw material viz., HD which was disputed by the assessee and the statement of the Director, there was no other evidence on record to indicate clandestine manufacture and removal of final products - In the circumstances, on the basis of the material available on record, it is not possible to state that the Tribunal has committed any legal error in giving benefit of doubt to the assessee - It is a basic and settled law that what is admitted need not be proved - Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 479 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty - Delay in payment of duty by the assessees under the compounded levy scheme - Rule 25 prescribes mandatory penalty not exceeding duty on excisable goods in respect of which contravention specified in clauses (a) to (d) of the rule has been committed or Rs. 10,000/- whichever is greater - The Commissioner (Appeals) has given reasons for reduction in the penalty from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5000/- and no objection has been taken to such reasons by the Revenue in the appeal - Hence,no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the light, of the relevant rule and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
-
2010 (12) TMI 478 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat credit - The respondent had purchased the brake assemblies from M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd. - In order to avoid unnecessary transportation, the brake assemblies purchased by the respondent from M/s. Kalyani Brakes Ltd., were sent directly to M/s. Spicer India Ltd., Pune, the cenvat credit cannot be denied to the respondents as there is no dispute about the fact that the brake assemblies were ultimately received in the respondent’s factory alongwith rear/front axles and were used in the manufacture of finished goods. Demand - limitation - there is nothing to indicate that the respondents had any intent to evade payment of duty by taking wrong cenvat credit - Do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - The Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 477 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - sick unit -Tribunal did not take into consideration the financial hardship of the petitioner-company - The provisions of proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 the learned Tribunal was under obligation to consider the prima facie case as also the hardship of the petitioner-company - The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the provision of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 at the time of passing the impugned order - It is also evident that the question of taking into consideration the price difference in between the factory gate sale and consignment sale was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Held that: Tribunal passed the impugned order without adhering to the provisions of the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Therefore, there was procedural impropriety - Hence,the learned Tribunal has been quashed and set aside with a direction upon the learned Tribunal to pass a reasoned order on the basis of the observation made in connection with the application filed by the petitioner with the prayer for waiver of requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty .
-
2010 (12) TMI 476 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Time barred - Since, there has been a suppression regarding the production in excess of the small scale exemption limit, and there has also been non-payment of duty on such clearances during the relevant financial year, and since the show cause notice has been issued within the prescribed longer period of five years applicable in such cases - Consequently, the demand of interest and imposition of equal penalty under Section 11AC of the Act are also justified - Since the law provides no scope for leniency, no such leniency can be shown to the appellants - Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 469 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Waste and scrap - Excisability - The assessee being a manufacturer of cement having various structural portions which use to get damaged either due to prolonged use or due to excessive heat and evaporation and, therefore, it was becoming necessary to replace deteriorated or damaged parts/structures periodically - Held that: by using the raw material, being plates, sheets, welding electrodes channels, beams, angles etc. and by using such raw material, and subjecting it to manufacturing process, by giving welding, bending or finishing etc. a part required to be replaced comes into existence being which is obviously a spare part of the plant and machinery, a distinct commodity, and is placed in the plant and machinery, as a spare part, or as a replaceable part, it was held that in such circumstances in the process of manufacturing of such part, metal waste or scrap comes into existence, there can be no escape from the conclusion that metal waste or scrap has come into existence as a result of manufacturing process within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the said Act. - Demand of duty and penalty confirmed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 468 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification - In the case of Caprihans India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Aurangabad [2002 -TMI - 51304 - CEGAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI, the Tribunal by its order dated 14-6-2002 held that the goods in question could be classified under Tariff Heading 3916 but not under Tariff Heading 3920.39 as claimed by the assessing officer. That order of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court - the issue of classification had attained finality, the Tribunal could not have ordered deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- merely because the appellant had stated that the observation of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. to the effect that the goods in question could be classified under Tariff Heading 3916 is not acceptable to the appellant - The Tribunal was not justified in directing pre-deposit of Rs. 15,00,000/- when the classification made by the Commissioner was contrary to the binding decision of the Tribunal in the case of Caprihans India Ltd. - The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the CESTAT is directed to hear the appeal of the Appellant on merits without any pre-deposit.
-
2010 (12) TMI 447 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand and redemption fine - CVD is not leviable on old and used rubber tyres, but only on old and used pneumatic tyres - find that what was imported was used rubber tyres and therefore they are pneumatic tyres. It is not the case of the assessee that rubber tyres imported by them are not pneumatic tyres - Hence no ground has been made to set aside the levy of CVD - The fine amount is also very reasonable (i.e Rs.5000/-)having regard to the value of the goods - Thus , do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order which is accordingly upheld
-
2010 (12) TMI 446 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal u/s 35G - Demand - Time barred - whether or not there is any suppression of facts on the part of the respondent is always a question of fact - when such a plea was raised before the Tribunal, before concluding that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked the Tribunal was required to record findings of fact as to whether or not there was any suppression on the part of the assessee - Tribunal in its quest for easy disposals has lost sight of the fact that an easy disposal for the Tribunal translates into extra work for the High Court - notice was required to be issued to the assessee who needlessly had to bear the expenditure of having the case defended - Tribunal is not expected to write a lengthy thesis, but at least the bare minimum facts and reasons are required to be recorded - The appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 443 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Adjustment of duty - Whether the duty chargeable u/s 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 can be adjusted against the amount of 8% of the value of exempted goods under erstwhile Rule 57CC of Cenvat Credit Rules, 1944 - The revenue has contended that the adjustment so allowed is not legally correct also not strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the aforesaid CESTAT order in as much as the adjustment had to be allowed of duty already paid, whereas here the adjustment has been allowed not against duty but against the amount paid @ 8% - The revenue has pleaded that there is plethora of legal pronouncements holding that the amount paid under Rule 57CC is not duty - In this connection, it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) directed that the duty liability on hot rolled patta patti would be adjusted to the extent of duty already paid by way of adjustment of Modvat/Cenvat Credits - While directing so also keep in mind that revenue has not gone in appeal against the order of adjudication allowed by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority - In absence of appeal by revenue, the relief granted by lower authority cannot be denied - Therefore, the assessee should get relief granted by lower appellate authority - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 442 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Evasion of duty - Department received information about evasion of duty by the petitioner and issued a show cause notice alleging that it was availing CENVAT credit, without actual receipt and use of the same in manufacturing of final product - As per proposal of the Chief Commissioner, the assessee availed credit on G.C. Sheets which were not used for manufacturing of goods - This proposal was based on investigation and the statements - The Chief Commissioner gave personal hearing to the representative of the petitioner - Before passing of order, the Member of the Board also considered the representation and comments of the petitioner. It cannot be held that the impugned order is without any basis or material or justification - The conclusion is that the allegation was, prima facie, established - Having regard to the nature of power, the Board is not expected to finally adjudicate on the matter - There was no occasion for further or enhanced restrictions in the absence of any fresh material or circumstance - There is no discussion for imposing higher restrictions in the impugned order over and above - To this extent, contention on behalf of the petitioner has to succeed - Hence, partly allow this petition and set aside the impugned order
-
2010 (12) TMI 437 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Appeal to High Court - The learned CESTAT was holding that National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) is not leviable in respect of goods (Polyester Filament Yarn) clearance to 100% EOU - The issue involved in the present case pertains to the applicability of Circular No. 641/32/2002-CX., dated 26th June, 2002 whereby goods exported under bond have been exempted under levy to NCCD - The applicability of a notification or a circular which has a bearing on the determination of the rate of duty is a question which has a direct and proximate relationship to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment - Hence, in the light of the provisions of Section 35G read with Section 35L of the Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal - Hence, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs.
........
|
