|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 177 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... ioner (Appeals) had not considered their request for adjournment and dismissed the appeal. 5. From the record we find that notice for personal hearing was issued on 21.10.2005 received by the appellant on 17.11.2005 fixing the date of hearing on 16, 17 and 18.11.2005 The appellant on 17.11.2005 made a written request for adjournment. In spite of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order and held that enough opportunity was given, but the appellant did not avail on some pretext or the other. 6. As noted above, only one opportunity was granted and the appellant asked for adjournment. In view of this, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh in accordance with the direction given in the earlier remand order dated 20.7.2005 The appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
2012 (6) TMI 925
... ...
... ... ..... erty to approach the Tribunal and for taking steps in accordance with law. Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
-
2012 (6) TMI 881
... ...
... ... ..... nufacturer is to file a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in support of their claim regarding reversal of credit on inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods. The Appellant submitted that they had already applied to the Commissioner of Central Excise in view of the retrospective amending provisions. In these circumstances, the impugned Orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to concerned Commissioners of Central Excise to decide the issue of reversal in view of the retrospective amending provisions. The Appeals are disposed of, as indicated above.” It is clear from the above that the issue involved in the present case is similar to the aforesaid order dated 8.11.2010. In these circumstances, we remand the case to the ld. Commissioner to decide the case afresh on the same line. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing may be given to the appellants. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2012 (6) TMI 865
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Miscellaneous application is dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. Further, we find that the Tribunal vide stay order dated 16.12 directed the applicant to deposit the dues as per the adjudication order and the matter was adjourned today for reporting compliance. As the appellant has not complied with the stay order, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
-
2012 (6) TMI 860
... ...
... ... ..... ctics. Sh. J.M. Sharma, Consultant who has been appearing on behalf of the appellant has declined to argue and the appellant who has engaged battery of lawyers has not arranged for any other lawyer to make submissions on his behalf. Therefore, we do not find a good cause for extending a stay order earlier granted by the Tribunal which has outlived its life of 180 days. 10. In view of the above order dated 22-9-2011 2012 (279) E.L.T. 61 (Tribunal) dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit is recalled and stay vacated. However, taking into account the overall facts and circumstances, instead of calling upon the appellant to make full deposit, we direct the appellant to deposit 25 of the duty demand within four weeks. In the event of the appellant complying with the order the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount shall stand dispensed with and recovery stayed. 11. Appeal be listed on 18-9-2012 subject to compliance of the order of pre-deposit by the appellant.
-
2012 (6) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... bulk packs to retail packs, together with the fact that the petitioner has already passed on the duty element to the consumers, this Court is not inclined to delve into such issue any further. In view of the fact that refined edible oil manufactured by the petitioner was chargeable to Central Excise duty even prior to 1st March 2003, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. (supra) as approved by the Supreme Court in the later decision in the case of Collector of Central Ex., Hyderabad v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra), rate of duty chargeable would be that prevailing on the date of removal of goods. 13. Under the circumstances, there being no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the authorities below, there is no warrant for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 846
... ...
... ... ..... 05/- for the credit of input/input services for the period prior to 1.3.2008 seems to be not yet deposited by the appellant. The legal issues raised by the ld.Counsel needs to be gone in detail, which can be done only at the time of final disposal of appeal. Keeping in mind that the Stay Order of the co-ordinate Bench dt.31.01.2012 and the Final Order in the case of Global Pharmatech Pvt.Ltd., prima facie, covers the issue, we find that the appellant needs to be put some condition as to the amount which has not been reversed and towards interest which needs to be paid on this amount. 6. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) within a period of eight weeks from today and report compliance on 30.08.2012. Subject to such compliance being reported, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 845
... ...
... ... ..... case the notice issued in 2008 is clearly barred by limitation.” 5. It was next observed that amount of ₹ 9,456/- was denied to the assessee on the ground that the credit was availed on the waste and scrap which cannot be considered as input or the final product and also that the authority had not disclosed as to how waste and scrap could not be considered as an input. That was the finding in addition to findings on limitation arrived at by the Tribunal quoted hereinabove. 6. As we agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that the demand made by the department was time-barred, the question sought to be raised in the present appeal in respect of credit transfer under Rule 10(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 need not be considered and is not considered and accordingly it is not considered. Without going into that question, this tax appeal is dismissed only on the ground that the demand was time-barred. 7. This tax appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 842
... ...
... ... ..... w the appeal with consequential relief." 7. As against above reproduced findings, we find the grounds of appeal of department (as reproduced hereinabove at paragraph 4) are not rebutting the detailed findings. The grounds of appeal only raises technicality of the impugned order. It is also to be noted that eligibility to avail Cenvat Credit of ₹ 60,50,093/- is not disputed by revenue, their objection is only for availment of such credit in later months. In our view this objection is incorrect, as, if an assessee if otherwise is entitled to credit should not be denied the benefit only on technicality. In our considered view, the impugned order has correctly appreciated the law based upon factual findings by first appellate authority. In view of the foregoing, we find that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. Appeal filed by department is rejected. Operative portion of order pronounced in the Court after conclusion of hearing.
-
2012 (6) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... interest of justice which generally requires decision of an appeal on merits. 16. Hence, in our considered view the order under appeal is against law. The learned Tribunal should have given opportunity to the appellant to correct the memo of appeal by showing that the appeal has been preferred by the Committee of Commissioners of Central Excise itself or by the officer duly authorised for preferring the appeal. Only if the defect is not removed inspite of grant of opportunity, the Tribunal may be justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of such defect. Hence, the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for granting opportunity to the appellant to take steps to remove the defect within a reasonable time and if the defect is removed in the manner indicated above, then the appeal should be heard at an early date and decided on merits. This appeal is therefore allowed to the aforesaid extent only. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... inal orders within a period to be fixed by this Court, it is not appropriate to direct refund of the amount at this stage. But ends of justice would be met if the amount deposited by the petitioner is treated as a deposit in the hands of the respondent entitled to earn interest at 9 for the period from the date of deposit till the petitioner becomes entitled to claim refund after final order is passed. If the order goes in favour of the petitioner, the amount deposited shall be refunded along with interest at 9 . 11. Petitioner is directed to file his reply within two weeks from today. The Commissioner is directed to consider the matter and pass orders after conducting necessary enquiry in accordance with law within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the reply. As already ordered, petitioner will be entitled for refund along with interest at 9 in case he succeeds in the proceedings. 12. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms stated above.
-
2012 (6) TMI 816
... ...
... ... ..... refore, rightly (and reasonably) opined that upholding entitlement to the payment of interest at the rate of 24 per annum would be excessive and it would meet the ends of justice if the rate of interest is reduced from 24 per annum to 12 per annum on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We are not inclined to interfere with that view of the High Court but make it clear that this concession is confined to the facts of this case and to the parties herein and shall not be construed as a precedent for overriding Rule 64A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. It is also clarified that the payment of dues should be cleared within six weeks from today (if not already cleared) to get the benefit of reduced rate of interest of 12 ; failing the payment in six weeks from today the liability to pay interest 24 per annum shall stand.” 13. In view of above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 796
Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after the amendment of Sec. 035A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by virtue of Sec. 128A(2) of the Finance Act, 2001 - HELD THAT - Section 035A( 3) of the Act as amended confers powers on the Commissioner (A) to annual the order-in-original and also to pass just and proper order. There may be circumstances where only just and proper order could be to remand the order for fresh adjudication. Thus, we are of the view that the Commissioner (A) have power to remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority even after the amendment of Section 035A( 3).
Both the sections defined the powers of Commissioner (Appeals) in similar language.
-
2012 (6) TMI 794
Extension of stay - stay granted earlier, further extended by a period of six months or till the final disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier
-
2012 (6) TMI 793
Whether Cold Rolled Strips are the result of a process of manufacture undertaken by the petitioners - Held that: - Apex Court in the decision in case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. reported in [2012 (11) TMI 885 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] wherein it was held that The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in observing that since the assessee has a remedy in the form of a right of appeal under the statute, that remedy must be exhausted first, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, ought not to have been interfered with by the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee - Petition dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 791
... ...
... ... ..... by the 100 EOU in respect of the clearances made to the DTA purchasers and Central Excise duty is to be discharged by the DTA purchasers on such clearances ?” 2. To be heard along with Central Excise Appeal Nos. 5 of 2009 and 59 of 2012.
-
2012 (6) TMI 785
Excisability of the intermediate chemical - clandestine removal - D2 Aminobutanol Tartrate falling under Chapter S.H. 2942.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - it is alleged that the product is illicitly manufactured and removed for captive consumption for manufacture of Ethambutol HCL of Chapter S.H. 2942.00 during the period from 23-7-1996 to 31-3-2001 - Held that: - for the Department to levy excise duty on the product in question, it would have to establish that the product itself is marketable. It is equally settled that while doing so, the chemical being stable would not be conclusive, but only one of the aspects. In case of Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. [2003 (2) TMI 65 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the Supreme Court while accepting that this new product may be stable, refused to uphold the Department’s stand that it is marketable without any other evidence on record.
Insofar as the opinion of the chemical examiner that the product is stable, that by itself as held by the Apex Court in the case of Cadila Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., would not be conclusive. What is required to be ascertained was whether such product is marketable. In other words, the product was known in the market and that it was possible to be bought and sold in the market. Mere hypothetical possibility of some availability in the market by itself would not be sufficient. The Department’s stand, therefore, that merely because chemically the product is found to be stable, in our view, cannot be stated to be new or sufficient material to enable the Department to hold the view that such product is marketable.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (6) TMI 783
CENVAT credit - forged invoices - the goods covered under the invoices were allegedly not supplied but some other scrap was supplied - appellant argues that the alleged offence is covered u/r 26(2)(i) but the said provision was introduced in the law only on 1.3.2007 and was not in existence at the material period during March 2005 to November 2006 - Held that: - the appellants are directed to predeposit 10% of the penalty amounts in each case within four weeks from today and report compliance on 20.7.2012 - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2012 (6) TMI 778
... ...
... ... ..... ) 329.610 MTs Stock Found on physical verification 266.690 MTs Difference (-) 62.920 MTs The weighment was done on the weighbridge installed in the factory premises of the party having capacity of 1 MT.” 9. Such stock verification report and statement recorded immediately after recording such stock gives room for suspicion that the report is not a reliable piece of evidence and elements of arbitrariness and coercion is apparent on the face of the record. The statement extracted from Shri Tajinder Singh also cannot give support to such a piece of evidence. So I conclude that it is also a statement under duress. Therefore, I am of the view that the case made out by Revenue cannot be accepted notwithstanding the statement given by Shri Tajinder Singh. Consequently, I set aside the impugned orders of lower authorities and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. Consequently appeal filed by Revenue gets dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2012 (6) TMI 777
Denial of rebate claim - whether the rebate ”Duties” actually paid at the time of de-bonding of a 100% EOU Unit on the goods exported by applicant can be granted under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/04-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 - Held that:- When statutory provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004 are read in proper perspective along with instructions contained in Chapter 8 (Para 8.4) of C.B.E. & C.’s Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions then it becomes clear that rebate of only that much amount of Central Excise Duty is admissible as indicated in the respective ARE-1s and is (actually) paid at the time of clearance of impugned export goods which are to be exported within six months of the date of such clearances unless specific extension/permission is granted by the jurisdictional Commissioner. All the rebate claims under reference are to be considered within the ambit and scope of above said provisions of law. In this case matter, Government is in conformity with the views of lower authority and Commissioner (Appeals) that because the duties paid at the time of de-bonding were duties of nature of Customs Duty including CVD, the applicant could have made a Drawback claim under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 in terms of relevant Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1995.
Plain reading of statutory provisions of Acts/Rules as clarified vide relevant Notification/C.B.E. & C. Circulars are strictly bindings on the authorities constituted and working under those statute, finds the impugned orders-in-appeal as perfectly legal and proper and same are therefore upheld. - Decided against Revenue.
........
|
