|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 3806 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 1255 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Denial of rebate claims - export of goods - defect in the original application - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Admitted facts are that the petitioner had made necessary declarations in format of Annexure-19 which is prescribed under Rule 19 of the said Rules. Along with it, the petitioner had also supplied documents of proof of export and for that rebate would be made. We notice that Rule 18 of the said Rules pertains to rebate of duty and provides for rebate claims by following the procedure prescribed by the Government of India under a notification. Rule 19 of the Rules pertains to export without payment of duty. Thus, both these Rules operate in vastly different fields. It is in terms of Rule 18 that the Government of India under notification No.19/2004 laid down detailed procedure for making rebate claims. On the other hand, Annexure-19 is prescribed for declaration necessary for export without duty in terms of Rule 19 of the said Rules - neither Rule 18 nor notification of Government of India prescribe any procedure for claiming rebate and provide for any specific format for making such rebate applications. The Department, therefore, should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect, could have been asked to be cured. When the petitioner re-presented such rebate applications in correct form, backed by necessary documents, the same should have been seen as a continuous attempt on part of the petitioner to seek rebate. Thus seen, it would relate back to the original filing of the rebate applications, though in wrong format. These rebate applications were thus made within period of one year, even applying the limitation envisaged under Section 27 of the Customs Act. - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1215 - SC ORDER
Denial of SSI Exemption - assignment of brand name - Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 - Use of other's brand name - Held that:- Tribunal, found that this was not factually correct and the responsible officer of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. itself had filed an affidavit stating that they were not using the said trade marks and had no objection if those trade names/ marks are used by the assessee. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1214 - SC ORDER
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - duty was paid under protest during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings - Held that:- there was no question of passing on this element of duty to consumers/buyers. We, thus, do not find any merit in this appeal - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1213 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Provisional refund - Since the commencement of the Act, due to deduction of tax at source and input tax, credit tax available on the purchases made by the petitioner within the State of Punjab, the petitioner gets refund every quarter - petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted an application dated 24.8.2015 followed by another application-cum-reminder dated 19.10.2015 to respondent No. 4, but no action has so far been taken thereon. - Held that:- Perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.3 to decide the applications dated 24.8.2015 (Annexure P-5) and dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-9), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. It is further directed that in case any amount is found payable to the petitioner, the same be released to it within next one month - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1212 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of Court - Bombay High Court or Gujarat High Court - Held that:- mere fact that the situs of the adjudicating authority is situated at Vapi within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court or that part of the investigation has been carried out at Vapi would not be a determinative factor for compelling this court to decide the matter on merits. As noted earlier, against the order passed by the adjudicating authority, appeal lies to the Tribunal and against the order of the Tribunal, appeal lies to the Bombay High Court. Therefore, the statutory forum to adjudicate the dispute raised in the petition at the level of the High Court is the Bombay High Court and not this High Court. Had the petitioner availed of the remedy of appeal, instead of invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the dispute would have travelled to the Bombay High Court and not this High Court. The Bombay High Court being the jurisdictional High Court insofar as the adjudicating authority, the lower appellate authority, as well as the Tribunal in relation to matters arising from the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, it is the decisions of that High Court which are binding on those authorities. Under the circumstances, it is the Bombay High Court before which the action can be most appropriately brought - Decided against Appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1211 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
100% EOU - payment of duty at the time of debonding - Revenue directs Assessee to pay duty in cash whereas assessee wants to pay through CENVAT Credit - Held that:- In case of similarly situated persons, namely, M/s Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others, as stated in paragraph-9 of the memorandum of petition, the respondent authorities have permitted them to discharge the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account instead of the cash payment. The petitioners have produced on record a copy of a communication dated 21.11.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Ahmedabad addressed to the Deputy Development Commissioner in connection with the request for “No Due Certificate” for debonding of Exit out of 100% EOU Scheme by one M/s Alps Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., which clearly shows that the said unit has been permitted to discharge excise duty for indigenously procured duty paid raw materials lying in stock in their factory from the Cenvat credit account. In paragraphs 9 and 14 of the memorandum of petition, the petitioners have clearly stated the names of various parties in whose cases the Ahmedabad Commissionerate has permitted payment of excise duty from the Cenvat credit account. - Besides, the petitioner company is a reputed well established Pharmaceutical Company and hence, the interest of the revenue is in no manner jeopardized if the interim relief, as prayed for, is granted, whereas the petitioner company would have to face a cash crunch if called upon to pay the excise duty foregone in cash, whereas its Cenvat credit account would remain unutilized. Besides, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, ultimately the excise duty foregone which is to be paid in cash, is going to be added back to the amount of Cenvat credit lying in the account of the petitioners, under the circumstances, the petitioners have clearly made out a prima facie case in their favour.
When different companies situated in different regions of the country, are granted a particular benefit, the petitioner therein which was situated in Gujarat, was also entitled to the similar treatment. As noted hereinabove, various assessees, including the assessees situated within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Commissionerate have been given benefit of paying the excise duty foregone from the Cenvat credit account. Under the circumstances, prima facie, there appears to be no reason to deny such benefit to the petitioners. - petitioners are permitted to pay the excise duty foregone from the legally availed Cenvat credit account. Upon the excise duty being paid through the Cenvat credit account, the second respondent shall issue “No Due Certificate” to the petitioners for debonding out of 100% EOU Scheme. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1210 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- Once the conditional order of stay has attained finality, the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition cannot be independently challenged. A period of more than eight years has also passed. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the dismissal of the appeal by CESTAT for failure to comply with the pre-deposit condition, cannot be sustained. - The order of the Tribunal shows that the appellant had admitted, at least in respect of one month, the clandestine removal of goods. - Decided against assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1209 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Denial of MODVAT Credit - Whether Tribunal committed error in allowing the Modvat Credit of Goods which were received prior to 16.03.1995 by the Assessee and which were not covered under the definition of Capital Goods prior to 16.03.1995 and whether the said goods were eligible for Modvat Credit under Capital Goods vide Notification No.11/95- CE(NT) dated 16.03,1995 - Held that:- there is no legal error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in confirming the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), who has correctly interpreted the provisions of rule 57Q of the rules. The facts as emerging from the record reveal that even prior to 16th March, 1995, the goods on which the assessee had availed Modvat credit were capital goods as envisaged under rule 57Q of the rules. The subsequent notification dated 16th March, 1995 merely specifies the Chapter Headings and the capital goods. The amended sub-rule (2) of rule 57Q provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), no credit of the specified duty paid on capital goods (other than those capital goods in respect of which credit of duty was allowable under any other rule or notification prior to the 16th day of March, 1995) shall be allowable if such capital goods were received in the factory before the 16th day of March, 1995. On a plain reading of sub-rule (2) of rule 57Q of the rules, it is evident that credit of duty would be allowable on the capital goods in respect of which the credit of duty was allowable under any other rule or notification prior to 16th March, 1995. Under the circumstances, when the capital goods on which the assessee had claimed credit were capital goods in respect of which credit of duty was allowable under rule 57Q prior to its amendment under 16th March, 1995, such capital goods were entitled to Modvat credit and the amendment of the said rule would not take such goods out of the ambit of the excluded categories even in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 57Q. - it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity so as to give rise to any question of law much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1208 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre deposit - Section 35F - Held that:- One after the other three successive writ petitions were preferred by petitioner before the High Court of Delhi assailing the orders passed by the CESTAT and this fact cannot be ruled out that petitioner-company remained sick for a long time and became viable and started commercial production in February, 2015 and so also the fact that right of appeal which has been provided under the statute, ordinarily is not to be frustrated and in the present facts & circumstances, if the petitioner is not permitted to deposit, as prayed for by him in terms of order passed by the ld.Tribunal dt.27.04.2006, he will remain remediless and taking note of the long litigation, we are of the view that the petitioner deserves indulgence to be afforded an opportunity to comply with the order of pre-deposit passed by the CESTAT dt.27.04.2006 on his application filed u/Sec.35-F of the Act within a period of thirty days from today, the appeal which was filed before the CESTAT deserves to be restored and heard on merits. - petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner now complies with the condition of pre-deposit in terms of the order of CESTAT dt.27.04.2006 on his application filed u/Sec.35F of the Act, be restored and the same be heard on merits. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1207 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - fixation of Special Rate in respect of its product, namely, Ferro Silicon for the year 2011-12 representing the actual value addition - notification No. 17/2008 CE dated 27.3.2008 (as amended vide Notification No. 31/2008 CE dated 10.06.2008) - reduction of entitlement from 100% to 39% - Non production of relevant documents - Held that:- Union of India, could not point out anything further except what is provided in the affidavit-in-opposition whereas the petitioner company has asserted that it had supplied all documents, even though they were not required under the rules, which are also admitted by the respondents in the affidavit. We thus think it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioner afresh on merit which were disposed of vide the order dated 24.12.2014 only for non-supply of certain documents. A detailed reason would thus be required to be given by the quasi judicial authority within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1206 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Duty demand - Request restraining the respondent no.2 from proceeding any further with reference to the show cause notice, without calling for the witnesses, who have been requested for cross-examination - Held that:- requirement is only of affording an opportunity for that purposes and nothing beyond it. We are also of the opinion that if the Department has recorded statement of fifteen informants before issuance of show cause notice, it is not necessary that the evidence of all the fifteen witnesses may be relied upon for the purposes of maintaining the demand. It is always open to the Department to rely upon the evidence of such number of informers, as may be necessary in the facts of the case. The assessee cannot insist upon cross-examination of all the informer, especially the statement of whom may not be relied upon by the Department for maintaining the demand. - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1205 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 11AC - Denial of CENVAT Credit - Nexus with manufacturing activity - Held that:- Imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11 AC, when duty and interest is paid within thirty days, the amount of penalty shall be 25% of the duty. As the duty along with interest has already been paid by the respondent assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly reduced the penalty (50% of duty) imposed under Rules 15(2) and 15(3) to 25% - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1204 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Unutilized CENVAT Credit - Notification No. 6/2002 - Held that:- Appellants were eligible to avail deemed credit on the inputs procured by them for manufacture of textile and textile articles, during the period Sept, 2002 to Jan, 2003. It is also undisputed that during the relevant period, the appellant had manufactured and exported the goods on payment of duty. - there is no doubt that unutilized CENVAT Credit lying in the balance of the Books of the respondent is liable to be refund to him. No provisions were brought to our notice which indicate that such deemed credit would lapse after rescinding of Notification No. 6/2002 - concurrent findings of both the lower authorities that the appellant are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit has not been controverted by the Revenue in the grounds of appeal. The grievance of the Revenue seems to be that the respondent had filed the refund claim before the expiry of the quarter ending 31.3.2003 is a non-starter and the assessee can plan his business and can file the refund claim even before the quarter comes to an end. The other grievance of the Revenue that non-filing the return correctly is a procedural lapse as also and non-starter as when there is no dispute as to the fact that the assessee respondent in this case has utilized the inputs in manufacturing and exported the goods, the denial of credit will not be in consonance of the law. - impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1161 - SUPREME COURT
Duty demand - whether the chemical processing of Platinum, Palladium, Rhodium, Gold and Silver is intermediary product which is exigible to excise duty - Held that:- final goods which fall under Chapter 71, no CENVAT/MODVAT credit is taken on the aforesaid products which are treated as intermediary products. On the other hand, the goods manufactured falling under Chapter 71, in respect whereof the dispute is raised by the Revenue, the goods are cleared at nil rate of duty. We, thus, do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal which are deciding the issue correctly on the facts of these cases. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1160 - SUPREME COURT
Undervaluation of goods - Demand of differential duty - Evasion of duty - The case set up in the Show Cause Notice was that at the relevant time, manufacturing of electric hair removers and dyers was reserved for SSI unit, hence, Gillette could not have directly manufactured the said goods. Therefore, in connivance with Braun, which is a group company of Gillette and Rialto, it got the same manufactured in the premises of Rialto.
Held that:- Evidence which was produced and relied upon by the Commissioner in his order, the CESTAT has arrived at an categorical finding of fact that Rialto was not a dummy or shadow company of Gillette and further that the contract between the parties was on principal to principal basis. It has also stated that, if at all, such a contract can be treated as one whereby Gillette had given job work to Rialto, the transaction between the parties were not sham. Even if, it was a job work done by Rialto, Rialto had been paying excise duty thereon.
Findings which are returned by the CESTAT in this behalf included finding that Rialto and Gillette are separate and independent Companies with separate juristic personality; Rialto manufactured the goods and supplied the same to Gillette on payment of duty of excise under statutory invoices; in the Show Cause Notice, the Department did not raise any objection with regard to these returns; the goods were not manufactured by Rialto out of raw materials procured by themselves; the capital goods used for the purpose, i.e., machinery, was lawfully acquired by Rialto under a lease agreement with Braun.
Facts which weighed with the Commissioner were brushed aside by the CESTAT with cogent reasons. It pointed out that the same were insignificant and were, in any case, satisfactorily explained by both Gillette and Rialto. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT
Transaction value u/s 4 or MRP based Valuation u/s 4A - sale of footwear to various buyers in retail as well as to various institutional buyers in bulk - Held that:- CESTAT had recorded specific findings to the effect that the shoes in question which were supplied in packages to the aforesaid customers had MRP affixed on them. It was further found that clearances were not under Rule 34 of the Rules which exempts supplies of materials in bulk from the operation of Weights and Measures Act, meaning thereby it was obligatory and essential on the part of the respondent to affix MRP on the goods supplied.
Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was affixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, the provision of Section 4A of the Act shall stand attracted.
Issue is no more res integra and has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in 'Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajasthan' [2007 (8) TMI 3 - Supreme Court] - There is no error in the judgment of the CESTAT - Decision in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1158 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation - deduction of cash discount / interest on receivables - Finalization of provisional assessment - Held that:- Tribunal in the impugned order, mentioned that the price charged in the invoices for sales on credit terms are of WHEEL BEARING GR 88 and ALL PURPOSE GRS 88 as ₹ 68.00 and ₹ 69.50 respectively. On the other hand, price charged in invoices for cash sales was ₹ 66.81 and ₹ 68.28 respectively. - Tribunal itself, after mentioning those prices, failed to notice that the difference between price charged on credit terms and cash sales was to the extent of 1.75 per cent, which was nothing but cash discount. - Invoices for sales on credit terms, interest for the credit period was in built in the credit price. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1157 - SC ORDER
Benefit of Notification No. 1/95 dated 04.01.1995 - Held that:- A reading of the notification makes it clear that the benefit thereof is available in respect of goods mentioned in Anenxure I and the items specified therein includes raw material as well as consumable goods - A finding of fact is arrived at by the Tribunal that the aforesaid inputs could be treated as consumables. On this finding of fact, benefit of the notification was rightly extended to the respondents. We, thus, do not find any merit in these appeals which are, accordingly, dismissed. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT
Clim of refund of duty paid where the demand of duty has been set aside in another case holding the activity is not amount to Manufacture - cutting of marble blocks into marble slabs and tiles - Held that:- Duty was paid by Respondent after proper adjudication and a particular view was taken which was upheld by the Tribunal as well. As mentioned above, no further appeals were brought by the respondents and, therefore, such proceedings had attained finality. The order of refund of this amount, merely because this Court took different view thereafter in some other case, would not permissible.
Thus, insofar as direction contained in the impugned judgments to refund the amount of duty, interest and penalty is concerned, the same is set aside. However, once this Court has settled the position of law holding that the aforesaid process would not amount to manufacture, from the date of the judgment of this Court, the Excise Department is not entitled to recover any such excise duty from the respondents - Decided in favor of revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Availment of concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No.14/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002 - Held that:- Explanation-II of the said notification provides for the purpose of condition specified in the said notification, textile yarn or fabrics shall be deemed to have duty paid even without production of documents evidencing payment of duty thereon. The larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. vs.CCE & ST, Ahmedabad-[2014 (11) TMI 79 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] in the context of Explanation-II of notification No.14/2002-Ce grey fabrics purchased from the market may be deemed to be duty paid eligible to exemption under Sr.No.16 of the said notification when processed. Reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - appellant claimed benefit for the finished goods under Sr.No.16, We find that in all the cases, the assessees received unprocessed textile fabrics for the processing, so, the appeals before us are covered by the decision of the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Arvind Products Ltd. (supra). - Impugned order is not sustainable - Decided in favour of Revenue.
............
|
