|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 61841 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.
- 2022 (1) TMI 864 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine Removal - mild steel ingots from sponge iron - pig iron - cast iron and scrap evidenced by disproportionate consumption of raw material and energy - corroborative evidences or not - preponderance of probability - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any supporting evidence, it would appear that the duty leviability on manufacture is sought to be imposed on seeming inefficiency in the production process. There is also no escapement from the factual determination of the trial production in two shifts conducted under the aegis of central excise authorities. The backbone of quasi-judicial determination by preponderance of probability fails at the precipice of the trial production to afford a leap of rational inference which no extent of dogma can bridge. The failure to maintain prescribed records are no less attributable to the lack of m....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 808 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Penalties under section 11AC of Customs Act, 1962 and rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - mandate for inclusion of amortized cost had not been complied with in computing the assessable value for discharge of duty liability - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the computations leading to the confirmation of demand during the first round of litigation were revised substantially during the second round indicating lack of certainty when proceedings were initiated by the central excise authorities. A higher measure of certainty cannot be expected of an assessee. It is also seen from the records that guidelines on proportionate allocation of costs were covered in circular no. 170/4/96-CX dated 23rd January 1996 of Central Board of Excise & Customs whereas the demand pertains to a period prior to that also. Reliance can be placed in th....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 807 - CESTAT ALLHABAD
Entitlement of interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit - appellant submitted that since the appellant is entitled to refund of pre-deposit, from the date of deposit till the date of its realisation under Section 35FF of Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- Division Bench of this Tribunal in M/S. PARLE AGRO PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, NOIDA (VICE-VERSA) [2021 (5) TMI 870 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], wherein interest on pre-deposit (made during investigation) have been enhanced from 6% to 12%, following the ruling of the Apex Court in SANDVIK ASIA LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND OTHERS [2006 (1) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT]. The impugned order is set aside. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund. Such interest should be granted within a period of two months from the date of receipt or service of the copy of this order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2022 (1) TMI 760 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - inputs - inputs were received between November 1997 and December 1998 - denial of credit on the ground that under rule 3(1) of the 2004 Credit Rules, credit could be availed only in respect of the central excise duty paid on ‘inputs’ received in the factory of the manufacturer on or after 10.09.2004 - eligibility of the appellant to avail credit under rule3(2) of 2004 Credit Rules - failure on the part of appellant to produce documentary evidence in the form of relevant invoices/records showing receipt, issuance, consumption and proper accounts of inputs on which credit was availed - violation of rule 9(5) of the 2004 Credit Rules - interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is seen that the appellant has explained as to why it could not immediately avail CENVAT credits on Tanks fabricated in the ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 759 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - Chemicals sent to the job workers for carrying out further process - inputs which were not received within 180 days - rule 4 (5)(a) Central Excise Rules,2004 - suppression of facts or not - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the appellant has sent the inputs chemicals for job work in the water base. The entire processed goods have been returned within 180 days. The remaining quantity was subsequently returned back though after 180 days but the same was in the form of wastage. In fact the job worker is not required to return the wastage material which is predominantly the contaminated water therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has not received back the processed goods within 180 days. In this fact the appellant has received back the processed goods within 180 days therefore, the demand on the ground that th....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 758 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of the amount Central Excise Duty - deemed exports or not - supplies made to ONGC and Oil India Limited against International Competitive Bidding - exemption under Serial No 336 of Notification No 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - when the goods are exempted and cleared on payment of duty whether subsequently refund can be claimed? - HELD THAT:- In the present case there is no dispute that the goods cleared by the appellant were indeed exempted in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Therefore, the excise duty was not payable since the appellant has paid the excise duty which was otherwise not payable the same is refundable to the appellant. In the case of COMMISSIONER VERSUS SUNCITY ALLOYS PVT. LTD. [2007 (2) TMI 137 - HIGH COURT, RAJASTHAN], the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court held that if in respect of the goods e....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 757 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Liability to pay interest on differential duty - goods cleared from depot - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that differential duty and interest is payable in principal. However, the appellant have raised dispute about calculation of duty. It is their submission that if the cum-duty price is considered the duty amount will come to ₹ 12,95,181/- instead of total differential duty paid amounting to ₹ 15,01,214/-. This amount is sufficient to meet the differential duty of ₹ 12,95,181/- and ₹ 2,06,033/- towards interest. Accordingly, the duty of ₹ 15,01,214/- paid by them may be considered as interest and duty and there is no further interest liability. The cum-duty benefit is legally available to the assessee. Statue provides that whenever duty is calculated, it should be calculated considering cum-duty price. Ho....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 710 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - ISD invoices - management and repair services - clearance of waste and scrap (old empty soda bags), guddar, old PVC drum, old empty bags, etc. - scrap cleared by the appellant are not manufactured scrap or scrap arising in the course of manufacture of final products or bye-products - demand under the provisions of Rule 9 (6) of CCR - HELD THAT:- The disallowance by the Court Below is for vague reasons. The cenvat credit received by the appellant unit through ISD invoices is wholly allowable in respect of the repair and maintenance services received. Further, the Court Below have erred in allowing part of such services and have disallowed the part of amount for no ostensible reasons - the amount disallowed is bad and the ground is allowed in favour of the appellant. Demand of 6% on clearance of waste....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 709 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - inputs - ingots - allegation of fake sales and transfer of inadmissible CENVAT credit, without actual transfer or delivery of goods - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the case of similarly situated co-appellant (arising from the common impugned order), the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/S ARYA ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, ROMY BANSAL, DIRECTOR, RAJ KUMAR BANSAL, DIRECTOR (FORMER) , AMIT GUPTA VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS & SERVICE TAX, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, ALWAR [2020 (3) TMI 148 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that In the absence of the inputs, it is not possible to manufacture final product, which the appellant have shown to have manufactured and cleared on payment of duty. Penalty also cannot be levied. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2022 (1) TMI 562 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine removal - M.S. Ingot - Confiscation of excess found stock - quantum of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- The excess stock found during the physical stock taking for which a panchnama was drawn in the presence of authorised signatory Shri D K Shrivastava. No objection was raised at the time of drawing the panchnama by Shri D K Shrivastava however, in the panchnama he submitted that the excess stock accumulated over a period of time therefore, in my view, there is no dispute about the excess stock found. However, no mala fide intention can be attributed to the appellant such has any attempt to clear the goods clandestinely but in terms of Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 it is the bounden duty of the assessee to record stock of finished goods. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the excess stock was not ac....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 507 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Refund - amount paid during the investigation is under protest - main thrust of the ld. A.R. is that the amount deposited by the appellants during the course of investigation has taken the shape of pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal has observed that the amount deposited by the appellant is sufficient for the purpose of Section 35, therefore, this Tribunal dispensed with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of dues. From going through the observations of this Tribunal, it is found that the observation of the Tribunal does not say that the amount paid during the course of investigation has taken the shape of pre-deposit. This Tribunal only found that it’s sufficient for the purpose of Section 35 of the Act. Further from the facts, it is clear from the order-in-original that the course of investigation, the cheques of &....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 506 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Excisable goods or not - Bagasse/press-mud - Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - manufacturing activity is involved in the manufacture of bagasse/press-mud or not - Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - bagasse/press-mud can be considered as final products in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 or not - common inputs/input services were used for the manufacture of both dutiable goods(sugar and molasses) and exempted goods (bagasse/ press-mud) - non-maintenance of separate records - requirement to pay an amount equal to 5% of the value of the exempted goods i.e. bagasse/press-mud, as pre Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - penalty under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra as the question as to whether bagasse is ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 505 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT Credit - Exempt service or not - employee either provided accommodation in their residential colony and in some cases where the employees are residing outside the factory, house rent allowance given - deemed consideration under Rule 6 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or not - HELD THAT:- As per Rule 6 for demanding 6%/7% it can be charged only on the value of exempted services. In the present case the appellant are not receiving any value by providing the rental house to their employee within the premises. Since no value is flowing from employee to the appellant there is no question of calculating 6%/7% on the value which does not exist - since the house was provided to the employee which are engaged in the manufacture of the final product hence ultimately all the activities get absorbed in the manufacture of the final product i.e ....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 448 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Process amounting to manufacture or not - re-packing from the bulk of imported chemical to a smaller packing and re-labeling thereof - whether the process amounts to manufacture or is merely a trading activity? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is observed that sub-clause (5) of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which has been relied upon by the adjudicating authority below while confirming the demand against the appellant, comes into picture only when the inputs on which Cenvat Credit has been taken, are removed, “as such‟, from the premises of the importer/ manufacturer. As already discussed above, the imported inputs have undergone such changes at the end of the appellant that may be called as manufacture prior those inputs were cleared by the appellant. It becomes abundantly clear that clearance of inputs....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 447 - CESTAT ALLAHBAD
Seeking refund of excess duty paid - Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- Section 3 A(4) of of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is followed as the commissioner has decided the issue in principle and remanded the matter simply, only for the purposes of calculation of the duty payable. He exercised the quasi-judicial powers in terms of Section 3 A (4) and administratively, directed his subordinate to calculate the duty. In the circumstances, it is found that there is no infirmity in the order passed and directions given by the Commissioner. It is found that the interest of justice is not in jeopardy if the directions of the learned Commissioner are sustained. However, since the matter pertains to the period September, 1997 to March, 2000 and redetermination of duty has been directed, vide M/S RHL PROFILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISS....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 392 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Supporting manufacturer or not - Procurement of inputs under Advance licence Scheme - appellant has not disclosed the facts to the department - suppression of facts or Mis-declaration - extended period of limitation - Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 - HELD THAT:- The present case can be decided on limitation itself therefore, the issue on merit is not decided. In the present case demand involved is for the year 2008 whereas Show cause notice has been issued in June 2013 therefore, the entire demand is under extended period. The Show cause notice as well as the Order-In- Original alleged that the appellant has not disclosed the facts to the department that they have procured the duty free material from the M/s Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd against invalidation of a....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 391 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund claim of the pre-deposit - Rejection on the ground of time bar in as much as the appellant has filed the refund claim on 25.05.2018 after the final order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.04.2009 - HELD THAT:- The amount paid by the appellant is clearly a pre-deposit, as per the stay order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 20.06.2008. It is found from Board Circulars, Circular dated 02.01.2002 and Circular dated 16.09.2014, which are binding on the departmental Officer, the time limit of one year prescribed under Section 11B particularly in respect of pre-deposit which is by an order of the appellate forum, shall not apply. Moreover there is a reason for filing appeal on 25.05.2018 by the appellant that the departments appeal before the CESTAT was pending and appellant had filed the refund claim immediately af....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 390 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - input service or not - commission paid to an overseas agent - reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Since there were conflicting judgments of various High Courts on the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the commission paid, a Notification No 2/2016-ST dated 03/02/2016 was issued inserting an explanation allowing CENVAT credit of such commission. In the matter of M/S ESSAR STEEL INDIA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & SERVICE TAX, SURAT-I [2016 (4) TMI 232 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], a Division Bench of the Tribunal has held that this explanation has retrospective effect and applies even to cases prior to the insertion of this explanation. Relying on this order of the Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner has dropped the show-cause notice and allowed CENVAT credit to the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given a....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 359 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Benefit of area based exemption - Industrial Oxygen, Liquid Nitrogen and Nitrogen Gas are ‘Industrial Gases’ based on atmospheric fraction - benefit of exemption under N/N. 49-50/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003 denied on account of the fact that gases manufactured by the appellants are ‘Inorganic Chemicals’ falling under Chapter 28 and are covered under the entry at S.No. 4 of the Annexure to the Notification No. 49/2003-CE dt. 10.06.2003 in negative list. For unit no. I - HELD THAT:- To find that the product which is manufactured by the appellant is industrial gas, manufactured by way of atmospheric fraction, which specifically covers at S.No. 16 of the schedule, therefore, it is to be seen that whether the appellant is entitled for benefit under notification or not that product qualifies at S.No. 16 of the schedule of not....... + More
- 2022 (1) TMI 358 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Classification of goods - Biozyme - classifiable under tariff entry 31051000 or under tariff entry 31010099 - suppression of facts - intent to evade duty or not - penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that the appellant is clearing Biozyme in the packages of less than 10 litres or more than 10 litre cleared under chapter heading 31051000 was accepted by the department. With regard to the goods which are less than 10 litres, the Revenue wants to classify under chapter 31051000 of chapter heading of the tariff which described he goods should be in tablet form or similar form or packages or packages goods weight not exceeding 10 kgs. Therefore, intent of the said entry is clear that the goods should be in solid form i.e. in the form of tablet or powder and not in weight. Admittedly, kilogram and kilo litre ha....... + More
........
|
