|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 106 of 106 Records
-
2020 (2) TMI 35
CENVAT Credit - duty paid imported Reflex PVC film and aluminium rolls - subject inputs, PVC film/aluminium in rolls are subjected to process of cutting, slitting etc. to the required sizes as per the customer’s requirements, cleared on payment of duty - benefit of N/N. 24/2012-CE(NT) dated 19.04.2012 - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in the cases of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS ASSOCIATED CAPSULES LTD [2014 (2) TMI 721 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., DAMAN VERSUS MEDLEY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. [2012 (7) TMI 823 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that cenvat credit cannot be demanded on the ground that the process of cutting, slitting etc. of jumbo rolls do not result into manufacture.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 6
Valdity of SCN - pre-mature stage - recovery claim - HELD THAT:- Vide impugned SCN, this petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount should not be recovered from them. Thus, it appears that the final adjudication of the show cause notice by the respondent is yet to take place and hence we see no reason to entertain this writ petition at a pre-mature stage. It is also submitted by learned counsel for both the sides that the aforesaid show cause is yet to be replied by the petitioner despite the fact that it was issued in the month of September, 2019.
Petition dismissed.
-
2020 (2) TMI 5
Clandestine removal - on the basis of third party records - corroborative evidences or not - HELD THAT:- The contention of Revenue is that there is no third party involved in this matter. The said argument is not acceptable as Revenue itself is the litigant in this case who alleged that appellant is engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of goods. The said allegation is based on the record recovered from M/s PIL who is third party in this case. Strangely no show cause notice has been issued to PIL to impose penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Revenue’s case is based on the records recovered from M/s PIL and the statement of Shri Pankaj Agarwal. In terms of Section 9D of Central Excise Act, 1944 the Revenue was required to produce Shri Pankaj Agarwal in their defence to testify the documents recovered and the statement made by Shri Pankaj Agarwal are true and correct and thereafter the appellant was required to be offered for cross-examination of Shri Pankaj Agarwal. As the said act has not been done by the Adjudicating Authority, therefore, in terms of Section 9D of the Act, the evidence relied upon by the Revenue have no value in the eyes of law.
As Revenue has failed to produce any supporting evidence in their favour, therefore, the charge of clandestine removal is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 4
Clandestine removal - shortage of finished goods and raw materials, as compared with the stock records - demand on the basis of records recovered and statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act - CENVAT Credit - credit denied on the strength of invoices were no goods allegedly were received in the factory of the appellant.
HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, it is found that the he has neither followed the provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, nor the law laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in M/S G-TECH INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [2016 (6) TMI 957 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] - thus, the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, cannot be relied upon and hence has to be eschewed from the evidence. Further, the ld. Commissioner have not dealt with the stand of appellant, do not have manufacturing capacity to manufacture the goods as alleged by the department. With respect to documents relied upon by department, the author of the said documents has not been identified and examined - In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Hi-Tech Abrasives Ltd. Vs CCE& Customs, Raipur, [2018 (11) TMI 1514 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT], the said documents cannot be relied upon.
The department has also not enquired at the end of the buyers and there is no positive evidence adduced by the department. The demand has been confirmed on the basis of assumption and presumption - Therefore, demand of ₹ 44,06,966/- on alleged 2118.733 MT of SS Ingots clandestinely cleared for the period 18.08.2002 to 16.12.2002 is hereby set aside.
Further, the stock taking has been conducted on eyes estimation basis, as can be seen from the Panchnama drawn at the factory premises. However, the director Mr. Raman Bhatia and the Authorized Signatory Mr. Rajesh Sharma had expressed satisfaction and agreed with the shortage computed - demand on the alleged shortages is confirmed, but penalties set aside.
CENVAT Credit - denied only the basis of statement of transporter and Sh. Rajesh Sharma (Authorized Signatory) - HELD THAT:- The said statements has to be eschewed from evidence inasmuch provisions of Section 9D has not been followed. Therefore, the denial of cenvat credit of ₹ 64,244 is not legally sustainable and hereby set aside.
Since the demand is set aside, therefore interest and penalty is also set aside, and further penalty on Sh. Raman Bhatia is also set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 3
Supply of cables for research purposes - benefit of N/N. 10/1997- Central Excise dated 1.03.1997 (Sl.No.2) - benefit of notification denied alleging that the wires and cables in running length could not be considered as parts or equipment or accessories of any machines and/or water treatment plant - HELD THAT:- In the present case, necessary certificates as required by the N/N.10/97-CE dated 10.03.1997 and N/N. 6/20060CE dated 1.03.2006 have been issued by the Competent Authorities - Tribunal has consistently held that when a certificate was issued by the competent authority regarding specific end-use of goods as required under notification, the exemption cannot be denied.
Tribunal in the case of M/S. K.E.I. INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR [2016 (3) TMI 228 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and M/S. HAVELLS INDIA LIMITED VERSUS CCE, DELHI [2017 (4) TMI 986 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that cables supplied to Water Supply/Treatment plant are eligible for exemption under relevant notifications.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (2) TMI 2
Closure of proceedings on the ground that appellant has waived their right to a written show cause notice - appellant deposited the demand with interest and penalty under protest to buy peace - CENVAT Credit - paper invoices/fake documents - no inputs received - the bone of contention between the appellant and the DGCEI is that the settlement is not in the proper legal spirit, neither it is out of free consent and have further exposed the appellant to adverse inference particulary under the other tax laws and also as a matter of business repute - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, in view of the non acceptance of the allegation of the DGCEI by the appellant, as to non receipt of the inputs in question, we hold that the purported waiver vide communication dated 20.07.2016 is bad and illegal and is not enforceable against the appellant. Due to non agreement with the allegation of the DGCEI by the appellant, the DGCEI was bound to issue show cause notice and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
It has been provided in the CBEC circular / clarification dated 18.08.2015 that the letter of closure should be issued by an officer equivalent to the adjudicating authority. Further, quantification of the demand can only be communicated to an assessee once an investigation gets completed. Further, as per CBEC clarifications, a letter of closure is required to be issued without a separate adjudication order. Thus, the said closure dated 29.07.2016 is equivalent to an adjudication order, for all practical purposes. Thus, even instructions dated 18.08.2015 of CBEC have also been circumvented by ADG, DGCEI by issuing the closure letter, instead of a show cause notice, there being non acceptance of the allegation of the Revenue by the appellant / assessee.
The impugned letter of closure dated 29.07.2016 is bad and illegal and the same is accordingly set aside. The said closure letter is neither in the spirit of the CBEC‟s circular/ clarification dated 18.08.2015 and is evidently in violation of the provisions of Section 11 A(4) read with Section 11 AC (1)(d).
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
....
|
