|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 60922 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2020 (7) TMI 87 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Maintainability of appeal - requirement to make pre-deposit - Section 35F of Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- Section 35F requires cash deposit of 7.5% of the dues and there is no provision for adjustment of any other security. Tribunal being a creature of the Act is bound by the provisions of the Act and has no powers or jurisdiction to convert the mandate of Section 35F into any other act. As such, for entertaining the appeals appellants are required to deposit the amounts in terms of Section 35F. At this stage, learned advocate submits that his clients have no finance to deposit the amount in question even if some more time is given to them. He accordingly prays that the appeals may be disposed of as not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 35F. Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
- 2020 (7) TMI 86 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - sufficient cause for delay present or not - HELD THAT:- The order in appeal as has been proposed to be challenged was earlier accepted by the Committee of Commissioners and the Commissioner Jaipur gave the acceptance on 19 December, 2018. The extract of office note-sheet annexed with the time chart reveals that the order in appeal was directed to be reviewed on 15 May, 2019 without stating any reason for proceeding against the acceptance, which was made five months prior to the directions of the review. The limitation statute when specifically provides a time period for filing the appeals, the purpose requires adherence of time line for the same. Irrespective of the fact that Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing the appeal but the sufficient cause has to be shown by the appellant see....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 85 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - as against the order dated 10.06.2014, the appeal has been filed on 15.09.2016 - Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In this case the adjudication order dated 10.06.2014 is not received by the appellant. In reply to the RTI filed by the appellant it has been answered that mode of dispatch of Order-In-Original could not ascertained. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant that they have received the adjudication order on 04.08.2016 and they have filed appeal on 15.09.2016 which is well within time limit prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, therefore, there are no force in the impugned order, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed by way of remand with the direction to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the issue on merits after affording the reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.
- 2020 (7) TMI 53 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine removal - sponge iron - shortage in stock of coal and sponge iron - no corroborative evidences - HELD THAT:- From the show cause notice, it is observed that existence of weighbridge is admittedly within the factory premises. The weighbridge slips are considered as one of the important documents by the adjudicating authorities below providing the alleged clandestine removal. Once the weighbridge exists within the factory premises, the factum of clearance of goods from said weighbridge does not at all arise. This observation is sufficient to hold that weighbridge slips cannot be the evidence for proving that the goods were cleared from the appellant’s factory clandestinely. The weighbridge being within the factory premises, the weighment of any commodity or any entry in outgoing register from the said weighbridge cannot re....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 52 - CESTAT KOLKATA
100% EOU - Refund of unutilised cenvat credit - Revenue’s arguments in their appeals that the respondent is not manufacturing any excisable goods is devoid of any merit and is contrary to the facts on record - HELD THAT:- From the impugned order and the orders of the original authority as well as the documents submitted by the Counsel for the Respondent, we find that the respondent is indeed registered for manufacture of excisable goods by the department themselves. Central excise tariff heads of the goods which are manufactured are also indicated. We are sure, if the department had gone through these documents, they would have had no doubt that the respondent is manufacturing excisable goods. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has been filing ER-1 returns and also been clearing some manufactured goods on payment of excis....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 659 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine manufacture and removal - finished goods, Iron & Steel Ingot - period from March, 2007 to March, 2008 - demand based on documents recovered and statements recorded - HELD THAT:- The entries in the loose sheet might have created doubt in the minds of the Revenue, but it could not have been taken as a piece of evidence by itself. It would, at best, only create suspicion to further investigate the matter. Other evidence regarding procurement of raw material, manufacture of goods by engaging labour, usage of electricity, dispatch and transport of final goods, destination of final goods and receipt of sale proceeds etc, could have probably substantiated the allegation even if not proved with arithmetical accuracy. No such evidence has been produced by the revenue - In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the clandestine r....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 593 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Redemption of confiscated goods - Process amounting to manufacture or not - activity of affixing holograms on the CFLs (revalidation process) carried out by the appellant in its warehouse - Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- All the proceedings initiated against the appellant pertaining to all the warehouses including Kolkata warehouse, have been dropped on merits. All the proceedings against the appellants have been dropped by the Commissioner by passing a common order holding that the said activity cannot be constituted as amounting to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the main appeal has been allowed on merits in favour of the appellant, the present proceedings are only in respect of confiscation of the goods valued at ₹ 87,17,157/- with an option to red....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 592 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Time Limitation - removal of capital goods during the period September 2011 in contravention of Notification no. 22/2003- CE dated 31.03.2003, as amended, read with para 6.13(c) of the FTP 2009-14 and Para 25 of the Customs Law Manual, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The impugned order cannot sustain on limitation in as much as the Show Cause Notice was issued in September 2016 for the period in dispute of September 2011. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 552 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Demand of Central Excise Duty - demand against the appellant on the ground of denial of self-credit by denying the benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 to the appellant - HELD THAT:- In this matter, the demand has been raised consequent to denial of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt. 6.2.2010 by the Commissioner (Appeals). As the said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has already been set aside by this Tribunal vide order dt.20.5.2019, in that circumstance, the benefit of exemption Notification No.01/2010-CE dt.6.2.2010 is available to the appellant. Therefore, the proceedings were not warranted against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 416 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - manufacture of taxable as well as exempt goods - iron ore fines - period April 2015 to June 2016 - Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res-integra as it has already been decided in several decisions of this Tribunal that iron ore fines which emerges during the course of manufacture of sponge iron ore are in unavoidable and inevitable by-product and therefore same does not fall under the category of manufacture goods and accordingly same are not excisable. Thus, such goods cannot be considered as exempted goods and provisions of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable - reliance can be placed in the case of CCE, RAIPUR (CG.) VERSUS M/S. SARDA ENERGY AND MINERALS LTD. [2013 (12) TMI 859 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 356 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD
Refund of the MODVAT/CENVAT in cash - factory is closed - Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- This issue was examined by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in M/S. GAURI PLASTICULTURE P. LTD., BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD., M/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI IV, THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE MUMBAI I [2019 (6) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] which also examined whether unutilised cenvat credit can be refunded on account of the closure of manufacture activities of the factory. The Hon’ble Larger Bench has found that the law has not been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the SLP was merely dismissed on account of the concession made by the ASG. Further, the L....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 355 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Extended period of Limitation - suppression of facts or not - SCN based on change of opinion of Department - As the appellant was required to manufacture finished goods for supply to Railways out of scrap supplied by Railways, it appeared to Revenue that the inputs (copper rod) were never used in the manufacture of final product and the credit have been taken on the basis of documents only without receipt of inputs - HELD THAT:- The appellant have maintained proper books of accounts and records of their transactions. Admittedly, the whole demand is for the extended period of limitation. The Revenue has only made a bald allegation of suppression of facts, alleging the non disclosure of actual sale value of the scrap received from the Railways. There is no obligation cast on the appellant to intimate the Department on each and every transac....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 354 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - outward transportation of goods - Cement sold by the assessee to their customers on FOR destination basis - place of removal - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer Res integra. It has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX VERSUS ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD. [2018 (2) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT] and the issues were identical. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that where the goods are sold on FOR destination basis i.e., where the ownership of the goods gets transferred only at the buyer’s premises also no CENVAT credit is admissible for transportation of goods to the buyer’s premises. Credit cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 349 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
CENVAT Credit - denial of credit on the ground that as per N/N. 02/14-CE (N.T.) dt.20.1.2014, the appellant was not entitled to credit prior to the N/N. 01/10-CE dt.6.2.2010 - period i.e. 01.06.2012 to 19.01.2014 - HELD THAT:- Similarly placed assessee was allowed the credit although against those orders, the appeals have been filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals), in that circumstance, when the Revenue is having divergent views on the issue, the extended period of limitation is not applicable - Admittedly, in this case, the show cause notice has been issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, therefore, the denial of credit is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 347 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Valuation - goods transferred to sister concerns when there is also sale price of the same goods to independent consumers through service branches by the respondent herein - allegation that since there is a sale to independent buyers, the same value must also be adopted to the goods transferred by them to their sister concerns - HELD THAT:- When there was a concept of normal price (prior to 2000), a price list would be filed by the assessee and approved by the officers which would show the normal price after appropriate calculations including deductions on account of trade discount, transportation etc. After 2000, the concept which has been introduced was that of transaction value. Therefore, if the same goods are sold by the same assessee at different prices on different dates or to different customers, each such price would be the trans....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 329 - CESTAT, HYDERABAD
Clearance of Cement - Benefit of exemption Notification No. 4/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 (Sl No. 1A) - clearance of cement to M/s Andhra Pradesh Housing Corporation Ltd (APHCL) as well as for their own use in 50 kg bags declaring a retail sale price of less than ₹ 190/- per bag - Misstatement of facts or not - extended period of limitation - Interest and penalties - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the goods manufactured by the appellant fall under the Chapter Heading 252329. Sl No. 1 of the exemption notification is not applicable to the present case as the appellant is not a mini cement plant. Sl No. 2 defines what constitutes the retail sale price and its third proviso says where the retail sale price of the goods are not required to be declared under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules 1977 and thus ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 277 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Clandestine Removal - Department alleged that the appellant had full knowledge regarding the manufacture of excisable goods in the factory premises and subsequent removal without following the due process of law and without payment of Central Excise Duty - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - applicability of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The only element for the applicability thereof, no doubt, is mensrea that is the intent to avoid the tax liability either in full or in half. The above observation that appellant knew about his goods to be excisable not only this he was also aware about the concept of SSI exemptions but failed to prove that his entire stock is covered under said SSI exemption. The absence of Central Excise Registration in the given scenario is nothing but the intent of the appellant to avoid his ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 255 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - input services - Advertisement service and Storage/Ware housing service which are used for end product i.e. paint - appellant manufactures intermediate chemicals Phthalic Anhydride for their own another unit - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of intermediate Chemicals namely Phathalic and the same was used in the manufacture in their own another unit therefore, the common service i.e. advertisement and storage and Ware housing can be attributed to both i.e. paint manufacturing as well as intermediate product i.e. chemical manufacturing therefore, the appellant have rightly taken the proportionate credit in respect of Advertisement service & Storage and ware housing service. The appellant have rightly taken the credit - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 253 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Clandestine Removal - clearance of goods without issuance of invoice without payment of duty - SCN issued after a gap of four years of investigation - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The facts of the case are not disputed. That an investigation was conducted on the premises of M/s Pankaj Ispat Limited and records recovered in clandestine procurement of raw material. Moreover, the show cause notice has been issued after a gap of almost four years. Similar issue decided in the case of MANMEET ISPAT PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., CUS. & S.T., RAIPUR [2020 (1) TMI 418 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the show cause notice dated 3.2.2016 issued after four years is hopelessly barred by limitation. The proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable on the basis of third party evidence which is highly time barred - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (6) TMI 252 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Interest on Rebate Claim - duty adjustment - whether the interest is payable on the duty adjustment issue? - HELD THAT:- When Commissioner (Appeals) hold that while calculating the interest, could have been remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority with open remand as appellant has challenged the issue of liability of interest itself before the adjudicating authority. In view of this, as held by the Commissioner (Appeals) the calculation of interest is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to find out whether the appellant is liable to interest or not, thereafter, how much the interest is payable, if any - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
........
|
