|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 470 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1536 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine manufacture and removal - evidence - Held that: - It is also observed that the entire proceedings were initiated on the basis of assumptions and presumptions - Revenue had not placed any concrete evidence in support of their contention - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1535 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund claim of excess duty paid - valuation of physician samples - Circular No.813/10/2005-CX dt.25th April, 2005 - Held that: - it is evident that during the period under consideration, the value will have to be made under Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000. The same was done in the instant case - refund rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against Appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - welding electrodes - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case credit of excise duty paid on welding electrodes is eligible to be taken as inputs and/or capital goods, under the Cenvat Rules in respect of its use in repair and maintenance of capital goods and also installation of new machines used in the factory for manufacture of excisable final products?
Held that: - it will be necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1964 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] which is by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges - it was held in the case that We are not prepared to agree with the High Court that in order that "electrical equipment" should fall within the terms of Rule 13, it must be an ingredient to the finished goods to be prepared, or "it must be a commodity which is used in the creation of goods."
Merely because one issue is referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Ramala Sahakari Limited [2010 (11) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it cannot be said that the law which prevails today should not be followed. The Appellate Tribunal has not denied relief to the appellant on the ground that the definition of inputs is restricted only six categories mentioned therein.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1487 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Classification of goods - Kashyog Oil and Keshyog Herbal Powder Hair Wash/Shampoo - whether these impugned goods should be classified either as Ayurvedic medicine or cosmetic / toilet preparation? - whether or not the processes undertaken by GTM will amount to manufacture? - Held that: - The learned Tribunal relying on the decision of Himtaj Ayurvedic Udyog Kendra V/s. Commissioner of Central Excise Allahabad, [2001 (12) TMI 250 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], came to the conclusion that the products in question are rightly questionable under Chapter 30 as Ayurvedic medical preparation - the Appellate Authority rightly classified the product in question under Chapter 30 as Ayurvedic Medical Preparation.
Whether the process of labeling packing undertaken by the appellant will amount to manufacture or not? - Held that: - the learned Tribunal upheld the finding that the process undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1486 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Appeal admitted for hearing on substantial questions of law - Also heard on interim relief - As an interim measure, we direct that until further orders, no coercive steps be taken against the appellant for recovery of the amount.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1485 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - differential duty arising from disallowance of certain deductions claimed in the 'price lists' in 1991 - Held that: - the goods were cleared before the differential duty was crystallized in adjudication proceedings and the goods had been cleared on challans reflecting the declared price and declared duty liability. The burden of differential duty would not have been passed on - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1484 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Additional consideration - sales tax collected by the appellant on sale of goods and payable under deferred payment scheme but not paid to State Government due to availment of facility under advance payment of deferred tax scheme at Net Present Value, provided by State Government - Section 4 of the CEA 1944?
Held that: - Tribunal having ruled in favor of the assessee, reflects upon the fact that the issue is capable of two different interpretations. In such scenario, assessee cannot be held to be having any malafide intention for adopting the interpretation which the Tribunal has also upheld - extended period cannot be invoked.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1483 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Clandestine removal - penalty - principles of natural justice - Held that: - The Original Authority had not followed the principles of natural justice. He has decided the issue against the present appellant without hearing them. One of the principles of natural justice is that nobody should be condemned unheard - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1482 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Doctrine of merger - waiver of penalty - CENVAT credit on welding electrodes - Held that: - as per the doctrine of merger after the Hon’ble Supreme Court having dismissed Civil appeal filed against this Tribunal’s decision in the case of Birla Jute & Industries ltd., [2000 (10) TMI 145 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] this Tribunal’s finding that Cenvat Credit was admissible on electrodes has reached finality - there is no merit in the appeal filed by Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1481 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - whether appellant are eligible for CENVAT Credit in respect of MS angles, channels, beam, HR coils etc. which according to them except for use of a very small quantity in fabrication of supporting structure have been used for fabrication of capital goods? - Held that: - Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's decision' in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. CCE & Cus [2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] was applicable to appellant, where it was held that The definition of Rule 2(k) was applicable and Explanation 2 did not provide that cement and steel would not be eligible for input credit. The appellant is neither having any factory nor he is manufacturer. The appellant is a service provider of port.
Remaining quantity was used for fabrication of capital goods - reliance placed in the case of Union of India v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd, [2010 (10) TMI 1142 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that Cenvat Credit was admissible as inputs on MS plates, channels, angles etc., if they are used in the manufacture or fabrication of capital goods which are used within the factory for manufacture of final product.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1480 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalty - Central Excise duty with interest paid before issuance of the SCN - CENVAT credit - deemed exports - fake invoices - Held that: - the issue involved was a bonafide issue of interpretation of provision of law - in respect of the clearances made to hotels, the issue involved interpretation of N/N. 34/2006 - it is not a case of any malafide on the part of the respondent, thus justifiably calling for any imposition of penalty - penalty rightly set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1479 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine removal - It has been alleged that the appellant company had cleared the goods using Tax Invoice of M/s. V. S. Ispat. It has further alleged that they have cleared the finished goods using the Tax Invoice and Challans of the Trading unit situated at Dankuni Hooghly - Held that: - the Adjudicating authority mainly proceeded on the basis of the clarification of the Palsit Toll Plaza. It is seen that the Investigating Officers had not made any enquiry from the Transporter - There are demand of duty on the basis of loose slips on removal of goods to Guwahati DLF Limited, M/s. Super Diamond Nirman Limited, M/s. B. G. Shirke, Pune etc.
The Tribunal in the case of North West Switch Gear Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi [2014 (3) TMI 50 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] held that the charge of clandestine removal is a serious allegation. Thus, it has to be established by some positive and cogent evidences.
The demand of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty, cannot be sustained and it is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1478 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT credit - capital goods - C R Coil, HR Coil, MS Flats etc. - the Revenue had not disputed the User Test of the goods in question as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - It is seen that the items in questions were used as supporting structure of ESP Conveyor Support System etc.
The Tribunal in recent decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Bhilai Ispat Private Limited [2017 (4) TMI 206 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the identical issue and held that the allegation in show cause notice is very vague and without any support.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1477 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - time limitation - Held that: - the Revenue had not disputed the fact that the Assessee s name was shown as Consignee in the Invoices - also, the Revenue had not challenged the Order on limitation - credit rightly allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1476 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Recovery of duty with interest and penalty - It has been alleged that the assessee cleared duty paid inputs and finished goods without excisable invoices, without payment of duty and did not reverse the amount equal to credit availed on inputs - Held that: - the assessee undertook before the Adjudicating Authority to produce the documents, which they failed to do so. In such situation, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have allowed the assessee to produce the documents before the Adjudicating Authority for verification as the same documents were not before the Adjudicating Authority - the Adjudicating Authority should decide the matter afresh taking into account the points raised by the Revenue in their grounds of appeal - appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2018 (3) TMI 1475 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT credit - capital goods - perlite - Held that: - Perlite powder was used in the storage tank to control the temperature as an insulating material - The CBEC vide Circular No.276/110/96-TRU dated 02.12.1996 clarified that the credit was available on components/spares and accessories of the specified capital goods irrespective of their classification.
The denial of credit on the basis of classification of the goods is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1427 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Compliance with pre-deposit - Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - In the matter of Suvidha Signs Studios Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 85 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the petitioner therein failed to comply with the statutory mandatory requirement of depositing the 7.5% of the demand of duty and penalty and therefore, the appeal of the petitioner therein was dismissed.
Similar is the view taken in the matter of Pioneer Corporation v. Union of India [2016 (6) TMI 437 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief notwithstanding the amended Section 35F cannot possibly be taken away, the Court is of the view that the said power should be used in rare and deserving cases where a clear justification is made out for such interference.
Petition dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1426 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Non levy of penalty - section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - non-payment of tax for ignorance of law - Held that: - the appellant was under bonafide beleif regarding rate of service tax - the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that penalty, in these kind of matters wherein question of interpretation involved, does not arise and invoking the provisions of Section 80 is very correct and needs to be appreciated - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1425 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - amendment to section 35 of the Central Excise Act - Held that: - considering the difficulties shown, we extend the time for depositing the amount as directed by the CESTAT - We extend the time to deposit the amount as directed by the CESTAT under the impugned order by six weeks from today. In case, the appellants deposit the amount within six weeks from today the order dismissing the appeals shall stand set aside - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1424 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - Held that: - Considering that the debate with regard to validity of rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules is not yet concluded and is sub-judice before the Apex Court and further considering the fact that the present appellants have deposited the defaulted amount in cash with interest after the impugned orders are passed, the impugned order is set aside - The CESTAT shall hear the appeals on their own merits filed by the present appellants without insisting for pre-deposit - appeal disposed off.
........
|
