-
2023 (5) TMI 603
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - common input, i.e., furnace oil used in the manufacture of exempted goods - it was held that there are no error of law in the impugned order. That apart, the impugned order of the Tribunal is based on findings of fact. HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 1272
Maintainability of Review petition - HELD THAT:- A false averment has been made that the Review Petition was only dismissed on limitation and thus that was found to be a ground itself, apart from anything else for dismissal of the application. Now, the present Review Petition has been filed in that M.A.! - On examination of the same, we see no reason whatsoever, to entertain this application in view of what has been set out. The Review petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1131
Validity of SCN - gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices - whether SCN is void in view of non-adjudication after a lapse of nearly 10 years from the date of issuance of first show cause notice? - it was held by High Court that Since the respondents were totally responsible for gross delay in adjudicating the show cause notices issued by the respondents causing prejudice and hardship to the petitioner and have transferred the show cause notices to call book and kept in abeyance without communication to the petitioner for more than 7 to 11 years, the respondents cannot be allowed to raise alternate remedy at this stage. HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 369
Job-work - revenue contended that the assesse was liable for the job work and after investigation issued a show-cause notice dated 29.9.2006 - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident from the Rules of 2001 that Rule 7AA as framed on 30.4.2001 was superseded/repealed. The new regime brought into force under 2001 Rules described a procedure different from one envisioned under the Rules framed in 1944. Neither the showcause notice nor the order in original has adverted to this change and proceeded instead as if Rule 7AA was still in existence, which was a clear error. That error was noticed by CESTAT and correctly so. This Court is of the opinion that no question of law requiring determination arises in this appeal. The CESTAT order is justified. The Civil Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 1174
Exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E., dated 18-5-1995 - wastes, gums, etc. arising during the course of refining of vegetable oil - it was held by Tribunal that wastes, gums, etc., arising during the course of refining of vegetable oil, the appellant is entitled for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E. ibid - HELD THAT:- There are no good ground to interfere with the impugned order(s) - appeal dismissed.
-
2022 (10) TMI 578
Whether the extracts were goods for the purpose of the Central Excise Act and if so, whether they were classifiable under Chapter 13 or 30 of the Act? - the issue is decided in the case of DABUR INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT [ 2003 (8) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that Since the concurrent finding of act is that the liquid extracts used by the appellant in the manufacture of the medicines had therapeutic value, then they can, according to the CBEC circular be classifiable only under Tariff Entry 30.30 and not 13.03. HELD THAT:- The appeal is dismissed as covered by the above decision.
-
2022 (10) TMI 577
Exemption from Excise Duty - Iron Ore and Ore Concentrate - two distinct commercial commodities or one and the same commodity? - applicability of N/N. 13/2000-C.E. - HELD THAT:- A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., JSR BBSR-II VERSUS STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. [ 2002 (12) TMI 142 - CEGAT, KOLKATA ], wherein it was held that the process of obtaining Iron Ore does not amount to manufacture under the Notification dated 1-3-2000. The circular of 26-2-2003 clarifies that the word Ore provided in the Explanation of Integrated Steel Plant in the Notification dated 1-3-2000, also includes Ore Concentrate . There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal - appeal disposed off.
-
2022 (10) TMI 467
Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - withdrawal of exemption N/N. 71 of 2003 dated 09.09.2003 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner(s) to file such review petition making it clear that we are not expressing any opinion either way on the correctness of this submission. If that issue is answered against the petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) may take up the matter before this Court to challenge the view taken by the High Court in review petition and in which proceedings (before this Court), it will be open to the petitioner(s) to urge that the decision of UNION OF INDIA OTHERS VERSUS M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES [ 2019 (9) TMI 791 - SUPREME COURT] requires reconsideration. We are not expressing any opinion about the correctness of the submission made even in respect of the second point urged before us by the petitioner(s) - The special leave petition is disposed off.
-
2022 (9) TMI 1155
CENVAT Credit - input services - transportation service - nexus with the manufacture of the goods or not - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in denying the input tax credit and holding that such a service is excluded from the input service. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
-
2022 (8) TMI 1374
Condonation of inordinate delay of 272 days in filing the Review Petition - no satisfactory explanation given - HELD THAT:- No case for review of Order dated 8th March, 2021 is made out. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2022 (8) TMI 1101
Valuation - physician samples were given free of cost by the distributors and not by the manufacturer - Determination of 'transaction value' - HELD THAT:- These appeals are disposed off in terms of the judgment rendered by this Court in COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS, SURAT VERSUS M/S SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDS. LTD. v ORS. [ 2015 (12) TMI 670 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The transaction in question was between the assessee and the distributors. Between them, admittedly, price was charged by the assessee from the distributors. What ultimately distributors did with these goods is extraneous and could not be the relevant consideration to determine the valuation of excisable goods. When we find that price was charged by the assessee from the distributors, the Show Cause Notice is clearly founded on a wrong reason. Application disposed off.
-
2022 (8) TMI 634
Validity of Show Cause notice - Non adjudication / delayed adjustication of SCN for 11 years - CENVAT Credit - inputs - Menthol/Menthol flakes - Mentholised Oil (DMO) - Deterpinated Menthol like inputs - invoices issued by the J K and North East based units by showing supply of raw materials without supply of goods - It was held by the High Court that In the present case, no explanation has been offered in the written statement which can be held to be a plausible explanation for not adjudicating upon the Show Cause Notice within the time prescribed. HELD THAT:- In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, there are no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2022 (8) TMI 313
Clandestine removal - undervaluation of Silico Manganese - charges merely on the basis of entries in private diary without other corroborative evidence of flow back of fund etc. - HELD THAT:- We decline to interfere in this appeal being devoid of merits. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2022 (8) TMI 312
Maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to deviate from the concurrent view taken including by the Appellate Tribunal. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2022 (8) TMI 229
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount involved in the appeal - Interpretation and validity of Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - HELD THAT:- The Revenue should not have preferred the petition for special leave to appeal keeping in view the meager amount involved. In fact, the administrative expenses etc. may well be much higher than the tax involved. The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.
-
2022 (8) TMI 164
Mode of refund - Rebate / refund to be made in Cash or to be re-credited into Cenvat Credit account - petitioner paid lesser duty on the domestic product and higher duty on the export product which was admittedly not payable - HELD THAT:- the case involves the factual aspects. - Section 140 and Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 are not examined and no comment have been made whether or not the appellant(s) assessees would be entitled to benefit under the said Sections. No question of law arises for consideration, and hence, the appeals are dismissed.
-
2022 (7) TMI 353
CENVAT Credit - Bagasse - non-excisable goods or not - HELD THAT:- In view of the judgment of this Court in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS DSCL SUGAR LTD. [ 2015 (10) TMI 566 - SUPREME COURT ] holding Bagasse to be non-excisable to which the Cenvat Credit Rules had no application, the circular dated 25.04.2016 is unsustainable in law. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2022 (6) TMI 1260
Quashing of prosecution under Sections 9 and 9-AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - quashing on the ground that the CESTAT has granted stay on the recovery of the tax and penalty amount - HELD THAT:- It is an accepted and admitted case that the appeal preferred by the respondents is pending before the CESTAT and has not been adjudicated and decided. On examination of stay order which directs the appellant therein, namely, M/s Kavveri Telecom Products Limited, to make pre-deposit of Rs.15 lakhs. Therefore, there is no exoneration or finding on merits by the CESTAT on the subject matter of the criminal complaints. In the said facts, the High Court was incorrect and wrong in quashing the criminal prosecution only on the ground that the tribunal has granted stay, subject to condition of pre-deposit, of the recovery of the tax and the penalty amount. Petition allowed.
-
2022 (3) TMI 274
Captive consumption - benefit of the exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 till financial year 2005-2006 - Revenue has predicated their case on the addition of the item other in heading No.22.04 made vide subheading 2204.90 with effect from 01.03.2005 - HELD THAT:- The aforesaid addition is not a substantive change or modification. In fact, the Tribunal has pointed out and it is accepted that the changes were made pursuant to adoption and re-structuring of tariff from six digit to eight digit. The changes made were not with the intend to withdraw the existing benefits or to withdraw an exemption which had been given and had been enjoyed by the respondent/assessee for the last twenty years. The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2022 (2) TMI 1234
100% EOU - DTA sales limit - concessional duties of Central excise - Allegation is that goods cleared in DTA, in excess of the permitted 90% of the FOB value of the exports, in contravention of Para 6.8[a] of the Foreign Trade Policy and condition [2] of the notification number 23/2003-CE dated 31-03-2003 - HELD THAT:- There are no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned order. The civil appeals are dismissed.
