|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 196 of 196 Records
-
2014 (6) TMI 88
Rectification of mistake - Incorrect Citation mentioned for case law referred - Held that:- citation has been mentioned in the case of Global Vandana 2013 (293) ELT 186 instead of 2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB). Therefore, in paragraph 4 of the order referred therein may be read as Vandana 2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB) - Rectification granted.
-
2014 (6) TMI 62
Waiver of pre depsoit - CENVAT Credit - sending goods on Job work without receiving the goods in factory premises - inputs marked for another unit - Penalty under Rule 15 - Held that:- Prima-facie, we find that the Assessee is given facility of sending the inputs out and out to the job workers without receiving the same in their factory for certain processes so as to same expenditure on account of transport charges. In the present case, the Applicants have not followed the prescribed procedure, even though, they have purchased un-slitted coils of 1260 mm from M/s SAIL and before receiving the same in their factory, sent to the job workers for slitting it into different sizes so as to make it suitable for its use in the factory for further manufacture. Prima-facie, we find that at the time of slitting of the coils, the Applicants themselves were aware of the fact that some slitted coils cannot be used in the Garia factory, where the cenvat credit were to be taken, but to be used at their Falta Unit meant for export. Prima-facie, we also find that subsequent clearances of the slitted coils meant for Falta Zone, were not unloaded in the factory and consequently, not in accordance with law and the procedure laid down under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, namely, Rule 4 (5)(a) of the said Rules. At this stage, it is difficult to appreciate that whether the procedures followed by the Applicants are leading to revenue neutral situation or otherwise. Hence, in our opinion, the Applicants are not able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of predeposit - Conditional stay granted.
-
2014 (6) TMI 61
Application for amendment in approved ground plan of Central Excise registration to include the pipeline laid down from Wadinar (Gujarat) state to the refinery at Bina (M.P.) - Held that:- A combined reading of ‘factory’ and ‘manufacture’, makes it clear that while obtaining registration for carrying out any manufacturing activity, the approval of the ground plan would relate to manufacturing premises or factory - the factory ‘premises’ and ‘precincts’ have been interpreted to mean all building or complex with its surroundings where manufacturing activity is taking place. The transportation of the crude oil through the pipelines which travel through various States of India cannot be held to be a process integrally connected with the final manufacturing so as to include the same with the refinery functions. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikas Industrial Gas Vs. CCE Allahabad - [2000 (4) TMI 60 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has held that pump used for delivering water from the reservoir through pipeline to factory located a K.M. away from the factory cannot be held to be as falling within the factory precinct nor the bringing water from reservoir to the factory located at a K.M. away constitutes part of the manufacturing process.
The definition of factory covers the premises and precincts of factory and not the premises or precincts beyond the factory premises and a dam reservoir located away from the factory cannot be treated as within the factory premises. Similarly in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Southern Iron & Steel Co. - [2000 (5) TMI 100 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] it was held that a pump house located 15 Kms. Away from the assessee’s factory used for drawing and pumping of water cannot be treated as extension of the factory - pipelines laid down beneath the land for transportation of the crude, travel through various States and is primarily meant for transportation of the raw material. The entire area of the pipeline is around 900 Kms. of length. To allow the registration of the same by holding the same to be a factory premises or precinct thereof would meant to allowing the road area used by transportation of the raw materials by a truck - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 60
Duty demand - What would be the position in law if the last date of deposit is a holiday and the amount is deposited on the next working day in which case, whether, the petitioner has committed any default or not - Held that:- whenever a period is prescribed by a statute for the purpose of an act in a court or office and the period expires on a holiday, then according to Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, the act should be considered to have been done within the period prescribed if it is done on the next working day on which the court or office is open - petitioner deposited the amount on the next working day i.e. 5th November, 2005 and consequently did not commit any default in depositing the excise duty under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Consequently, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 59
Waiver of pre deposit - Qauntum of deposit - Held that:- appellant has already deposited a sum of ₹ 25 lacs, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting for pre-deposit of the remaining amount - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 58
CENVAT Credit - Whether the respondents are eligible to avail CENVAT credit for the service tax paid on freight for outward transportation from the place of removal during the period March 2006 to June 2007 - Held that:- CENVAT credit is eligible on service tax paid on GTA service prior to 1.4.2008 - Following decision of CCE, Bangalore Vs. ABB Ltd. [2011 (3) TMI 248 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - CCE Vs. Parth Poly Wooven Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 975 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (6) TMI 57
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Interest - Penalty - Whether the reversal of entire amount of CENVAT Credit availed on the common input services is enough compliance of the provisions of Rule 6; when an assessee manufactures and clears dutiable as well as exempted product - Held that:- though the appellant has produced some kind of evidence before us which would indicate that the appellant had started manufacturing the exempted cotton yarn from 18.01.2007, we find that the issue is unverifiable and the adjudicating authority has recorded that the appellant did not produce any evidence before him. Keeping in mind the elapsed time, we are of the view that if the appellant is directed to reverse this amount of Rs.1,22,606/-, it would meet the ends of justice and also the compliance of the law under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We direct the appellant to reverse an amount of Rs.1,22,606 within 30 days from the date of receipt - appellant also needs to be directed to pay interest on both the amounts i.e. Rs.3,26,554/- and Rs.1,22,606/-. Lower authorities will calculate the interest in accordance with the provisions of law and inform the appellant accordingly, and the appellant within 10 days of such amount being intimated, will pay the same into the Government treasury - However, penalty is set aside - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 56
Waiver of pre-deposit - Valuation of goods - Transaction value or MRP based - supply has been made to institutional/industrial buyers - Determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 4A - Held that:- Even though the quantity is supplied in bulk, it is clearly indicated in the purchase orders that the goods have to be supplied in boxes of 15 tiles. This indicates that the supplies are made in retail packs on which MRP is printed. Further, we notice there is hardly any time-gap between receipt of the purchase order and effecting the supply, which would also show that the supplies are made out of the quantity already manufactured by the appellant, packed and kept ready for sale. In this view of the matter, and also considering the decision of this Tribunal in the case of H & R Johnson, cited [2013 (11) TMI 1185 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the appellant has made out a case for grant of stay - Stay granted.
-
2014 (6) TMI 55
Denial of CENVAT Credit - input service credit on the services name CHA services, Insurance of employees, repair and insurance of employees, repair and insurance of motor vehicles, waste management service, AMC of telephones and computers, Pest control etc - Denial on the premise that these services do not qualify as input service as per the Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004 - Held that:- any service availed by the manufacturer of excisable goods in the course of their business activity of manufacturing, they are entitled to take input service credit. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellants are entitled to take CENVAT credit on the above services. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside - Following decision of Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. reported in [2010 (10) TMI 13 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 52
Duty demand - Demand of 10% of the value - Non maintenance of separate accounts in respect of ‘inputs’ and ‘input services’ used in the manufacture of sugar and other products - Held that:- where waste products arises and are sold without payment of duty, there is no need to maintain separate accounts and there is no need to pay 10% of the value in accordance with Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Following decision of Rallis India Ltd. v. UOI [2008 (12) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 27
CENVAT Credit - cenvat credit lying unutilized in the accounts of de-bonded 100% EOU is transferred to their DTA unit - Held that:- prima facie transfer of cenvat credit available in EOU account to the DTA unit on debonding of EOU is permissible. It is further observed that inputs and capital goods on which credit was availed by EOU were further utilized in DTA unit and therefore they are eligible for credit. Ld. advocate contended that the amount in question is still lying in the books of account and therefore there is no reason for insisting for predeposit of the amount by way of cash - Following decision of Tecumseh Products India P. Ltd. Vs CC & C.E [2011 (3) TMI 632 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 26
Area based exemption - Refund of duty paid through PLA - unit located in Kutch - Benefit of exemption notification no.39/2001 dated 31.7.2001 - Retrospective amendment in law - Held that:- petitioner's rebate claims though were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on 8.3.2006 and 8.3.2007, according to the petitioner, such orders were never communicated to the petitioner company. The respondents have not accepted this aspect. However, in the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the office of the concerned Assistant Commissioner having been shifted in the year 2008, some of the documents were not traceable. It was therefore, not possible for the department to produce the proof of the service of the orders.
Petitioner was never served with such orders. It was therefore, that when the law was changed to its retrospective effect by virtue of introduction of proviso to section 18 of the Central Excise Rules and enactment of section 88 of the Finance Act, 2008, that the petitioner labouring under the impression that rebate claims were still pending adjudication before the Assistant Commissioner, wrote on 14.5.2008 and requested that in view of such amendment, the rebate claims be sanctioned. It was on this application that the Assistant Commissioner passed various orders including one produced at Annexure-C dated 23.5.2008. All rebate claims which pertained to the period of 1.3.2002 to 7.12.2006 covered under the retrospective operation of the statutory provision, were granted.
Law retrospectively amended must be applied to the rebate claims of the petitioner. It is undisputed that such retrospective amendment in the statute covered all rebate claims. Therefore, if the petitioner's rebate claims were pending either before the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority or the revisional authority, when such amendments were introduced, such amendments had to be applied to such pending proceedings. Resultant effect would be that rebate claims were granted. Merely because the petitioner was prevented from preferring such further proceeding on account of the orders passed by the adjudicating authority were not communicated to the petitioner, situation cannot change. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 25
Confiscation of Indian Currency - As per Revenue, the said currency is the sale proceeds of gutka - clandestine removal - Held that:- For confiscating the currency in terms of Section 121 of Customs Act, 1962, which stands made applicable to the Central Excise law, it has to be first concluded that the same was actually the sale proceeds of the clandestinely sold excisable goods - before confiscating the currency, the Revenue must establish that there was by sale; that the sale was of smuggled goods; that the sale was a person having knowledge reason to believe that the goods were smuggled origin; that the identity of the seller and buyer must be established by the customs authorities. If all the above ingredients of Section 121 are not established by the Revenue, the violation of Section 121 cannot be made out. The said decision stands followed in a number of subsequent decisions and it stands held that in the absence of any evidence to establish the Indian currency as sale proceeds of tainted goods, the benefit has to be extended to the appellant - onus to prove that the Indian currency in question is the sale proceeds of the clandestinely removed goods is upon the Revenue, which is required to be discharged by production of affirmative, tangible and positive evidences.
Apart from the fact of recovery of Indian currency and the retracted statement of the appellant, there is virtually no evidences to indicate that the said currency is the sale proceeds of clandestinely removed goods, which the appellant had, in any case stopped manufacturing with effect from November, 2006 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 24
Remission of duty - whether the appellant is entitled to the remission of duty in terms of the provision of Rule 21 of the Central Excise rules, in respect of the semi-finished goods/work in process, destroyed in fire accident - Held that:- Appellant is not liable to pay duty on the semi-finished goods. As such, there is no requirement to file the remission application. No duty can be confirmed against them in respect of the said semi-finished goods. In fact, I find that vide impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not confirmed any duty against the assessee and has simplicitor rejected the remission application, which is not going to adversely effect the appellants - Accordingly, without going into the technical issue is as to whether the remission is required in semi-finished goods are not, appellant is not liable to pay any duty, the rejection or acceptance of the remission application is ineffective - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 23
Benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004 - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Held that:- AED is exempted by Notification No.30/2004-CE and, the case relates to 2004, there is no scope to utilize such credit by the appellant. In view of that, the decision of eligibility to avail the unutilized credit lying in Cenvat credit account as on 31.12.2004 on merit at this stage, when AED is exempted and the appellant is unable to avail credit is mere academic one - Decided In favour of assessee.
-
2014 (6) TMI 22
Availability of credit of service tax paid on the outdoor catering service - Held that:- Though it is a fact that number of workers was one of the criteria for the Larger Bench to hold the services as input services but to make a distinction on the basis of reasoning adopted by the Larger Bench cannot be appreciated inasmuch as it is the ratio of the law declared by the Larger Bench which is applicable and not the reasoning. Apart from above, I also find that the Larger Bench held that the outdoor catering service is an input service irrespective of the fact that a subsidised food is provided or not or whether the cost of the food is given by the worker or by the factory catering service availed - Following decision of Paramount Communication Ltd. Vs. CCE [2013 (3) TMI 38 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - Decided in favour of assessee.
....
|
