|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 108 Records
-
2020 (3) TMI 911 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay of 412 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal - HELD THAT:- The applicant has assigned sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 412 days. The application is accordingly allowed. Tax Appeal No. 499 of 2018 is ordered to be restored to its original file.
Tax Appeal shall now be notified before the appropriate Court taking up such matters.
-
2020 (3) TMI 910 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - duty paying invoices - It is the case of the Revenue that no material was received by the appellant against these invoices and only invoices were received and CENVAT Credit has been taken - HELD THAT:- As far as the invoices issued by M/s Swastik Insulators are concerned, two of these pertain to the invoices issued against the materials supposed to have been received by them from M/s Rajeswari Metallurgicals Limited, Bhiwadi, Mumbai. In respect of these invoices, the evidences in favour of the Revenue are the statements of Shri R.S. Elanjeran, Proprietor of M/s Swastik Insulators given on 31.03.2008 in which he confirmed that they have not received any material nor sold it to the appellant and have only issued invoices and made entries in their records and registers. Shri Elanjeran has not been cross examined as he was unwell but he gave in writing a letter that he stood by whatever statement he had made before the Officers of DGCEI. Therefore, to this extent, the evidence is against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue.
Invoices at Sl.No. 3 to 7 issued by M/s Swastik Insulators on the basis of invoices received from M/s M.M. Enterprises, Chennai. The evidence adduced by the Revenue in respect of these consignments is the aforesaid statement of Shri R.S. Elanjeran, Proprietor of M/s Swastik Insulators who affirmed that he had neither received the goods nor supplied the same which he stood by in the form of a letter when called for cross examination. He was not cross examined as he was suffering from cancer. There is no dispute regarding the transporters or the truck numbers as far as these goods are concerned.
The invoice at Sl.No. 8 of the statement issued by M/s Sree Enterprises, the evidence which the department has in respect of these invoices is the statement of Shri Anil Goel recorded during the investigation which was negated by him when cross examined during hearing before the adjudicating authority. He was not re-examined by the Revenue to prove that his original statement was correct and his statement during cross examination was not correct - Shri Anil Goel in his statement asserts that all materials were received and sold out and the power consumption was enough to draw the wire. These issues were not contested by the Revenue during adjudication proceedings by re-examining Shri Anil Goel.
Thus, there is not sufficient evidence to deny CENVAT Credit to the appellant against any of the eight invoices or to hold that the goods have not been received against them. Therefore, the demands raised in the show cause notice and confirmed by the Order-in- Original and upheld by the impugned order need to be set aside. Consequently, the interest and penalties also need to be set aside against the assessee.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 909 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Clandestine removal - shortage of goods - wrong calculation of abatement during the period 2009-10 - Shortage of goods compared to RG-1 register - CENVAT Credit availed on capital goods which were received under the cover of invoices issued in the name of another company.
HELD THAT:- After recording that it was indeed a merger of the company as per the order of Hon’ble High Court as per which the assets and liabilities of the merged company were transferred to the transferee company i.e. the appellant and after recording that CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to them, the Ld. First appellate authority sought to deny it only on the ground that the appellant should have approached the authorities to obtain permission for availing the CENVAT Credit, in terms of the proviso to Rule 9(2) of CCR 2004. A perusal of this rule would show that if the invoice does not contain all the particulars but contains some particulars then the Dy. Commissioner or Asst. Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the goods are covered by the said document have been received and accounted for, allow the credit. This is not the case in the present appeal. The name of the consignee is clearly given in the invoice and the consignee could have availed the CENVAT Credit. All assets and liabilities of the consignee have, by virtue of the order of the merger issued by Hon’ble High court, been transferred to the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason or requirement for the appellant to again approach the Asst. Commissioner or Dy. Commissioner to take permission to take credit of the goods which have been received.
There are no force in the observations of the first appellate authority with respect to this amount.
Imposition of penalties - HELD THAT:- There are no factual matrix any element necessary to invoke either the extended period of limitation for demanding under section 11A or imposing penalty under Section 11AC. The basis of the entire demand is the ER-1 returns and the invoices produced by the appellants themselves except to the extent of shortage noticed during physical verification of stock. The duty involved in such shortage is ₹ 6,647/- only and Ld. Counsel would submit that it is on account of damage caused by the rats - there are no reason to impose any penalty on account of this shortage. Therefore, all penalties need to be set aside.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (3) TMI 908 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Mis-classification of goods - Plant Growth Regulators (Micronutrients) - Bio-fertilizers - Bio-pesticides - whether Plant Growth Regulators under Chapter Heading 3808of Chapter 38 to the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act? - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra as this very Bench of the Tribunal has settled the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of DR K.R.K. REDDY, DIRECTOR, SRI BIO TECH LABORATORIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, HYDERABAD – I (VICE-VERSA) [2019 (8) TMI 1251 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where it was held that the demand raised by the department classifying them as Plant Growth Regulators under 3808 cannot sustain - demand set aside.
Bio-pesticides of microbial origin - Whether classified under Chapter Heading 3808 as against tariff item 3002of the Central Excise Tariff Act? - HELD THAT:- This Bench has followed the decision of T. STANES & CO. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [2008 (10) TMI 109 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] to hold that the demand of duty classifying the said products under Chapter Headings 3105 and 3808 cannot sustain and consequently, the same were set aside. The Bench further held that the current classification of the products are under Chapter Heading 3002 attracting nil rate of duty.
Bio-fertilizers of plant and animal origin and Bio-pesticides of plant/vegetable origin - HELD THAT:- The re-classification on this having been accepted by the assessee under Chapter Headings 3105 1000 and 3808 9910 respectively, the duty demand on this is sustained.
Demand of interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is with respect to classification and interpretation of tariff headings, we are of the view that penalties may not be warranted and hence, the same are set aside. The interest, however, since mandatory, is also sustained.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2020 (3) TMI 907 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Valuation - crank cases - job-work - captive consumption - applicability of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 read with Rule 10A ibid - demand of short paid duty alongwith interest and penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There was no scope for treating the appellant as an agent of M/s. M & M in any respect and for any purpose whatsoever. It is also made clear that M/s. M & M has agreed to purchase the components from the appellant and further, it has also an insurance clause requiring insuring of premises as well as the equipment with premia being paid by the appellant - There is no dispute that the appellant has in fact discharged the duties before supplying the goods in question to M/s. M & M which is based on the purchase price, as given in the respective agreements. This indicates that the goods in question have been manufactured by the appellant at a cost and thereafter, cleared on payment of duty.
It is not the case here by the Revenue that the manufacturer, i.e., the appellant, is only getting the job work charges which should have been the case if it is a job work simpliciter; nor has the Revenue established that the goods manufactured by the appellant are supplied free of cost to M/s. M & M. Any amount of supervision per se, may not be sufficient to treat the assessee-appellant as a job worker - there are no merit in the impugned orders on the merits as well as on the principles of consistency and consequently, the same are set aside.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Revenue was aware of the method adopted by the assessee since the Revenue itself had conducted periodical audits from 2011 onwards, documents evidencing which, are also part of the Paper Compilation - there is no scope at all for the Revenue to allege suppression, fraud, etc., to invoke the larger period of limitation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 901 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - copper wires - demand based on various statements - retraction of statements - HELD THAT:- There existed no evidence of threat or coercion on the proprietor of the Appellant firm in recording of the statement of 8th November 2011.Since, no cogent ground for the same has been adduced before us to buttress the same, a mere allegation of the same at this same is ill-conceived. Moreover, the proprietor in the subsequent statements has reiterated the same with minor retractions, and thus it would be far-fetched to hold that there had been gross duress on the proprietor of the Appellant at every instance of tendering his statements on various dates.
The counsel of Appellant before the appropriate forum, himself had agreed to proceed with the case without waiting further for cross examination of Panchas, and thus, once the adjudicatory authority had proceeded to adjudicate on such a premise, the Appellant, before us cannot invoke the ground of not cross examining the Panchas at such an appellate stage merely because the adjudication did not result in his favour - In light of the observations by CESTAT, the question as to whether the searches conducted on 8th November 2011 are illegal is purely a question of fact which has been sufficiently dealt with by the CESTAT. Thus the consequent question of whether the documents recovered during the searches can be relied upon to come to a conclusion, does not present itself.
In the matter of RELIANCE CABLE INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST (EAST) DELHI [2018 (11) TMI 1147 - DELHI HIGH COURT] which arises from the search and seizure conducted concurrently with search and seizure on premises of the Appellant therein, this court dismissed the Appeal filed, noting that the question of law raised by the Appellant were purely factual and no interreference was merited by this court.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 843 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Valuation - tin coils of width above 600 mm seized from the godown - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal had not given any reason and had not considered the non-seizure, however made as if there was a seizure. When the order-in-original was challenged based on certain vital facts, the Tribunal, being the fact finding authority, ought to have given reasons for non-interference of the order-in-original.
It is clear that the order of Tribunal is certainly a non-speaking order and the Tribunal failed to consider the grounds raised by the appellant. Merely reproduction of comments from the show cause notice or order-in-original is not sufficient for a Tribunal to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant. Each and every ground raised should be sufficiently discussed by the Tribunal while passing any order, that too, upon recording the rival contentions raised by either parties before it. The order passed by the Appellate Authority does not show any light on such discussions and it is merely reproduction of the contents raised in the show cause notice. The Tribunal has not independently applied its mind for dismissal of the appeal.
The Tribunal is obligated to record the reasons for its decision and bereft of such reasons in the order impugned, order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside - the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2020 (3) TMI 842 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Imposition of penalty u/r 26 of CER - Allegation of issuance of Cenvatable invoice to various customers without supplying of goods - HELD THAT:- Since, undisputedly, all the evidences relied upon in the present case were already considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S SUN TEXTILE ENGINEERS, M/S SHAH FOILS LTD. VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. - SURAT-I [2019 (12) TMI 846 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. Therefore, there is no need to again deal with all the common evidences such as pen drives recovered, documents recovered, etc. - In the present case, the only issue is related to imposition of penalty under Rule 26 against the appellant on the ground that they have fraudulently passed on the credit without supplying the goods.
The common evidence such as bill conditioning ledger, statements, etc were also considered. As the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that these evidences are not sufficient and accordingly, the charge of Shah Foils Ltd. that they have only issued the bills and not supplied the goods were not accepted by the Tribunal - In the present case, there are various traders in whose name the Cenvatable invoices were issued.
In the case which arose out of same evidence, therefore, in the present case also, the penalty imposed on the appellants will not sustain - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 841 - CESTAT KOLKATA
CENVAT Credit - slag - exempt goods - benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 - It is the case of the department that in terms of section 5A(1A) manufacturers are barred to remove absolutely exempted goods on payment of duty and referring to the Board’s Circular No.940/01/2011-CX dated 14.01.2011 - Period of dispute is from November 2009 to August 2014 - HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S HINDUSTAN COCA-COLA BEVERAGES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2013 (12) TMI 453 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and M/S NEULAND LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD- I [2013 (11) TMI 1339 - CESTAT BANGALORE].
The Tribunal while dealing with the implication of Board’s Circular dated 14.01.2011 held that there is no provision or Rule under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which puts an obligation on the receiver of goods to ascertain whether duty was payable on the said goods or not by the manufacturer supplier and then avail credit. Even a jurisdictional Central Excise officer at the manufacturers suppliers’ end may not be able to do the same as power of assessment has been taken away even from him.
Board’s Circular which has been issued without taking into consideration the implications of the provisions and the instructions, cannot be applied blindly for drawing adverse conclusion against the assessee. It was also held that merely on the strength of the said Circular dated 14.01.2011 Cenvat Credit cannot be denied, when there is no such provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 840 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Area Based exemption - goods manufactured in the factory shed at Khasra No. 115 and Plot No. B of Khasra No. 119 - Board Circulars dated 22.12.2010, 17.02.2012 and 01.04.2013 - seizure/confiscation of goods - imposition of penalties - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed that the appellant is entitled to area based exemption with respect to their main unit/ (unit-I) located at Plot F/119. Further, it is undisputed that so far the other two plots are concerned at Khasra No. 115 (Unit-II) earlier M/s Careplus was functioning and availing area based exemption vide declaration dated 27.12.2006. Thus, the appellant unit-II being admittedly the successor of M/s Careplus is also entitled to area based exemption till 27.12.2016. Further, admittedly at the present unit-III of the appellant (Plot B/119), earlier M/s Innovate was functioning and availing area based exemption vide declaration dated 27.12.2006, and admittedly the appellant unit-III is a successor of the said M/s Innovate and is accordingly eligible for exemption till 27.12.2016 under the exemption scheme (notification read with clarifications).
There is a virtual corridor / private road existing between the three sheds, admittedly located in one industrial complex and hence for all practical purposes, the three units can be said to be adjacent to each other. Further, it is admitted fact that the two units namely M/s Fantasy and M/s Jyoti Lab have their entry exit gate from the South East common passage, whereas the three units of the appellant are using the common passage on the North West side. Thus, there is no practical interference in movement between the three units of the appellant and virtual corridor exits. In this view of the matter also, Unit-II and Unit-III of the appellant are held to be eligible for area based exemption.
Thus, the appellant is entitled for area based exemption with respect to their unit-II located at Khasra No. 115 and unit-III located at Plot B/119 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 839 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Method of Valuation - Rule 11 read with Rule 4 or Rule 10(b)(ii) of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 - related party transaction - inter-connected undertakings - mutuality of interest - the department’s entire case is based on the fact that the appellant in its Annual Returns and Balance Sheets reflected the transaction with JBSL, SRBSL and JBIL as “related party transactions” - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice as well as the impugned order has mis-understood the difference in the concept of “related party” under the Companies Act, MRTP Act and Central Excise Act.
In the present case, the department has failed to prove mutuality of interest between the appellant and its buyers. It is settled law that mutuality of interest is a two way street. Further, common directorship is not evidence enough to establish mutuality of interest. Also, the three companies did not have cross-shareholding at any point of time.
It is settled law that there has to be extra commercial consideration or flow back of money and free flow of money from one company to another, cumulatively, for indicating interdependence of the units with each other. In the instant case, there has been no free flow of money from one company to another nor has there been any money given by the two companies to the appellant company - the allegation of mutuality of interest fails.
Further, there is nothing on record to show that the price charged by the appellant company from the said two buyer companies i.e. JBIL and SRBSL, had been influenced by either the common directors on the Board of the companies involved or due to the shareholding of the promoter group in the appellant and the said two buyer companies - The price agreed by the appellant company to the said two buyer companies at the time of entering into contracts were for bulk quantities to be supplied over the next twelve months. Such rates were in consonance with the price then prevailing and the difference of 20-30% alleged in the show cause notice is in respect of rates charged to other independent buyers under changed market conditions at a later point of time, for much smaller quantities. No additional consideration flowed to the appellant company from either of the two buyer companies.
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The demands of duty are barred by limitation as the show cause notices were issued beyond the prescribed period of one year as contained in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
Penalty u/r 26 of CER - HELD THAT:- No allegations against Mr.S.Mohapatra have been proved to conclude that he had reason to believe that the said goods were liable to confiscation. No material evidence has been placed on record in respect of the same. In view of the aforesaid, penalty under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be imposed.
Application disposed off.
-
2020 (3) TMI 838 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation - Scope of the show cause notice (SCN) - short paid the Central Excise Duty - inclusion of MRP of these toffees in the MRP of the jar cleared by them containing 150 Bubble Gums and 20 Solano Toffees - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the revenue that the jar containing 150 bubble gums and 20 Solano Toffees were to be valued as per the Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the contrary the finding of the Adjudicating authority that the said pack is an whole sale pack and not the retail sale pack has been admitted by the Committee of the Chief Commissioners while directing to file this appeal. After having done so, revenue has proposed to determine the value of whole sale pack by applying the provisions of Section 4A in respect of the Bubble Gums cleared by the appellant and the value of remaining Solano Toffees by treating them as free samples by application of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - We are not in agreement with such approach as by doing so revenue has proposed to disintegrate the wholesale package and determine the value of individual components under separate provisions of the same act.
Section 4A is not applicable to the whole sale pack in the form in which the jar containing 150 Bubble Gums and 20 Solano Toffees was cleared the value of entire jar was to be determined by application of Section 4 as it existed at that time. Revenue has in the show cause proposed not to determine the value of the whole sale pack but only a component of the said pack under Section 4 - Section 4 should have been applied to the entire pack in the form in which it is cleared, and liability to duty determined.
Since the show cause notice or the appeal filed by Revenue does not propose to determine the assessable value of wholesale pack in the form in which it is offered for clearance, there are no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2020 (3) TMI 837 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
100% EOU - refund of unutilized balance of cesses in cash - whether the appellant is entitled to cash refund of cesses in respect of which they had a balance in CENVAT credit account which they could not utilise on 01.07.2017? - HELD THAT:- The provisions of CGST allow them to carry forward the same as input tax credit under the CGST. However, the CGST Act does not allow them to carry forward the cesses as input tax credit. The appellant’s case is that as a result they will be losing the credit balance and therefore, the same must be paid to them in cash.
There is no provision in the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 or the Central Excise Act 1944 to allow cash refund of cesses lying in balance in the CENVAT Credit account on the ground that appellant was not able to use the same.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 836 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT credit - Capital Goods - allegation that plant erected at site are embedded to the earth and as such, such plant facilities cannot be considered as excisable goods for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit on such disputed items - requirement to avail 50% of CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods during the year of receipt - allegation that appellant had availed 100% CENVAT credit on the capital goods in the financial year of receipt.
HELD THAT:- On receipt of the disputed goods, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit under the head ‘inputs’. Those goods received in the factory were subsequently used for assembly/manufacture of capital goods, installed within the factory of manufacture of final products. The period under dispute involved in this case is from September 2006 to December 2008 - all goods excepting the excluded items/goods itemised therein, were considered as inputs for the purpose of availment of CENVAT credit. Further, the explanation appended to the said definition clearly specifies that the goods used for manufacture of capital goods, which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer should also be considered as inputs. The documents/records submitted by the appellant clearly demonstrate that the goods in question were used for erection/manufacture of various capital goods namely clinkerisation plant, power plant etc., installed within the factory of manufacture of cement.
Thus, as per the definition of inputs contained in Rule 2(k) ibid, the appellant should be eligible for the CENVAT benefit on the disputed goods used for manufacture of capital goods.
The denial of CENVAT benefit on the disputed goods should not stand for judicial scrutiny, as against rules framed in the CENVAT Statute - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 835 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - annual capacity of production - Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944 - demand was confirmed on the ground that appellant had not intimated the department before stopping production / closing of the factory - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that there is stoppage of production during the period 1.4.1998 to 17.6.1998, the demand of duty, interest or penalty for the disputed period cannot sustain and the same is required to be set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 834 - CESTAT CHENNAI
CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - MS Items - angles, channels and plates which are used for construction of plant and supporting structures of machinery - period from September 2008 to December 2010 - denial of credit on the ground that the MS items have been used as support structure of capital goods and for laying foundation - HELD THAT:- It is not found that these items have been used as support structure for capital goods. In paragraph-2 the ld. Counsel has explained as to the purposes for which MS items were used. Apart from a bald allegation in the SCN that these items are used as support structures, department has not put forward any cogent evidence to show that these are support structures for particular item of capital goods.
As these items have not been used as support structures or for laying foundation, we find that the disallowance of credit is unjustified.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 833 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Valuation - includibility - whether such tools supplied free of cost by M/s Tata Motors Ltd. would get included in the cost of parts on proportionate basis? - HELD THAT:- Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of MUTUAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [2000 (3) TMI 74 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI] where it was held that Proposition that such inclusion need not be made when after successive income tax depreciation cost of the moulds become zero, not acceptable.
Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant being manufacturer of motor vehicles part, the cost of the tools has to be included in the assessable value of the parts. As such, there are no infirmity in the invocation of the longer period of limitation.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 832 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of MOT Charges - principles of unjust enrichment - Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Though the refund is made under Section 11B, the said section provides for refunds of duty and interest whereas, in the present case, the refund is for MOT charges, therefore provisions of Section 11B will not apply. Consequently, the provisions of unjust-enrichment is also not applicable.
In a similar case, where refund was in respect of not duty or interest but for differential penalty, this Tribunal in the case of M/S INDICON COPIER SERVICES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , CHENNAI [2016 (3) TMI 606 - CESTAT CHENNAI] held that section for providing refund deals with only duty and interest element, therefore, it was held that unjust-enrichment is not applicable. The ratio of this judgment is applicable in the present case.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 831 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit - Process amounting to manufacture or not - whether the activities of opening the imported stock, inspection of the same, quality checks and repacking with affixture of sticker amounts to ‘manufacture’ within the meaning of Section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
HELD THAT:- This Bench in the appellant’s own case M/S. HONDA MOTOR INDIA P. LTD., M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, MANAGER (PARTS) , ATUL GUPTA, DY. MANAGER (ACCOUNTS & FINANCE) VERSUS CCE, CHENNAI – I [2018 (6) TMI 909 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that The processes carried out on the impugned goods received by the appellants from the port / other warehouses will amount to manufacture within the meaning of section 2(f)(iii) of the Act.
There is no change with regard to facts or law and therefore, the above ruling applies to the current appeals as well, on all fours.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2020 (3) TMI 830 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund of Excise Duty - amount paid under protest under Compounded Levy Scheme - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- In view of the categorical declaration in the invoices that the assessee have collected duty on the basis of the transaction value, which is further supported by the accounting treatment in the books of account, it is held that there can be no presumption that the assessee has passed on the duty paid under Compounded Levy Scheme, to the buyers of their goods.
Thus, the respondent has discharged presumption under Section 12B of the Act, that burden of duty has not been passed to the buyers of the goods, which is deposited under Compounded Levy Scheme - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|
