Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 60557 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 (1) TMI 1060
Refund of pre-deposit - pre-deposit by making reversal of CENVAT credit with interest - time limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - Appellant submitted that any amount deposited at any time after adjudication should be treated as pre-deposit and consequently the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act has no application at all. - HELD THAT:- In the present case, instead of seeking waiver, the appellant paid the duty, interest and 25% penalty in terms of Section 35F and filed the appeal before the Commissioner (A) who finally allowed the appeal vide its Order dated 22.10.2013. Consequent to the allowing of the appeal of the Appellate Authority, the mandatory pre-deposit made by the appellant in terms of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was required to be refunded by the Department to t....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1057
Demand of interest and penalty - excess availment of CENVAT Credit - non-utilization of such credit - appellant reversed the credit before issuance of SCN - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Since the excess cenvat credit was available to the appellant in the next financial year and further the appellant had not utilized the excess cenvat credit, the appellant is not liable to pay interest on the excess credit of ₹ 72,100/- - With regard to excess availment of other credit, It is found that the appellant has reversed the credit on being pointed out by the audit much before the issuance of the show-cause notice which was issued on 31/01/2018 - Further, the appellant during the disputed period had sufficient balance in their cenvat credit account and they have not utilized the same. Thus, in view of the decision of the Karna....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1056
Refund claim - refund rejected on the ground of Jurisdiction - Appellant exited from LTU - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that appellant filed seven (7) refund claimed on 28.1.2013 with the Deputy Commissioner, LTU, Bangalore because at that time LTU Bangalore had the jurisdiction to settle all the refund claims of the appellant and when the SCN was issued proposing to deny the refund claim, lack of jurisdiction was not raised in any of the show-cause notices. It is a fact that appellant exited from LTU after filing reply to the show-cause notice - Once the appellant has exited from LTU, it was incumbent on the part of the department to direct the appellant to file the refund claims to various concerned Divisions for claiming the refund. But the department has issued only corrigendum in only 2-3 cases and e....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1052
CENVAT credit - goods cleared to SEZ unit - Rule 6(6) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - recovery in terms of the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - period from 04/12/2007 to 31/03/2008 and August, 2008, September 2008 respectively - HELD THAT:- The appellant have made supplies to SEZ developer and not a unit in SEZ but his contention is that supplies made to SEZ developer is also considered as export because the appellant has cleared the goods to the SEZ developer under Rule 19 of CCR 2002 by filing ARE1 form and necessary proof of exports were being filed with the Department. Further, prior to the amendment in Rule 6(6)(i) by way of N/N. 50/2008, it is only the SEZ unit which was mentioned in the Rule 6(6) for exclusion and not SEZ developer. Subsequently....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1050
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Refund claim - duty paid under protest - benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus. dt. 31/03/2003 - stay order against arrears - HELD THAT:- This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by the Tribunal in appellant own case, INTEL TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE [2018 (5) TMI 1623 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it has been consistently held that Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted only when the confirmation of demand has attained finality and in the present case, the demand has not attained finality rather the pending cases on the basis of which the original authority has adjusted the refund claim has also been decided by the Tribunal. The impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore the same is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (1) TMI 997
SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - demand has been made against M/s JSFPL on the ground that they have shown their own clearances as being manufactured and cleared by other units as well as sold own manufactured goods under resale invoices by showing the same as traded goods - reliance placed upon the statements of partners/proprietors of units and statement of director of M/s JSFPL. HELD THAT:- The Appellant during adjudication proceedings have contended that all the partners/ proprietors cannot read/ write English being only 7th or 9th standard pass in vernacular language and even signed the statements in Gujarati Language. Thus in view of the fact that the evidences found during search are just contrary to the allegations, no adverse inferences can be drawn against Appellant and its associate manufacturing unit. When against....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 996
CENVAT Credit - input services - contract for supply of certain technology/Know-how - entire case of revenue is that the appellant have not used the service provided by SPIL & SPARC and, therefore, they cannot avail the said credit of service tax paid by SPIL & SPARC - HELD THAT:- The only fact that revenue has used to insist that the service was provided to the appellant and exported by the appellant on the same day is that the date of invoice is common. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the service was not provided in one day, the service was provided in a particular time duration and the service provided was being simultaneously used by the appellant by Supervising and Monitoring the activity in the entire duration. Thus, it cannot be correct to say that the service provided by the SPIL was not used by the appellan....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 980
Relief from putting retail sales price (RSP / MRP) - Clearance of cement bagged in individual bags to industrial buyers - Benefit of N/N. Sl.No.1C of the notification 04/2006-CE as amended - Department was of the view that the customers to whom the assessee has sold the cement cannot be termed as industrial consumers and therefore duty has to be paid in terms of Sl.No.1A of the notification - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra as it has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., BANGALORE-II VERSUS MYSORE CEMENTS LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 246 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the benefit of exemption N/N. 04/2006-CE (Sl.No.1C) is available to cement bagged in 50 kg bags but marked as cement meant for bulk use without printing the RSP and supplied to industrial/institutional consumers. ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 940
CENVAT credit - input services - outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer’s/customer premises - place of removal - scope of SCN - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Notice proceeds on the basis that the alleged irregular credit of ₹ 32,86,580/- pertains entirely in respect of service tax paid on outward transportation of finished goods from the factory to the buyer’s premises. However, the ‘OIA’ has accepted that the Cenvat credit involved on this score is confined to ₹ 3,26,055/- only and that rest of the disputed credit relates to four other issues. The break-up of the disputed credit involved in each of these issues are duly supported by a certificate dated 7 February 2018 from an independent Chartered Accountant and the same has not been disputed in the OIA....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 895
Cenvat credit on the Special Additional Duty (SAD) - SAD paid by them by debiting under Target Plus scheme as per notification No.32/2005-CUS dt.08.04.2005 - HELD THAT:- The jurisdictional High Court of Andhra Pradesh has, with respect to the very specific scheme, viz., Target Plus scheme in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-IV VERSUS RCC SALES (P) LTD. [2012 (10) TMI 452 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], held that Cenvat credit is available in respect of the SAD debited in Target Plus scheme. Credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
- 2020 (1) TMI 894
Valuation - inclusion of transportation charges paid for the transportation of the goods from factory to the Customer premises in the assessable value - Rule 5 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, read with Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - duplication of demand - demand reduced by the amount confirmed for that period by the earlier period - HELD THAT:- Commissioner has category held in respect of overlap in the demand proposed in this Show Cause Notice and demand confirmed by him in his earlier order. When the First Show Cause Notice was issued on the basis of EA 2000 Audit making certain charges against the appellant, then how can another show cause notice have been issued on the basis of same EA 2000 Audit for the same period which is contrary to the first show cause notice. In the first Show Cause the value is soug....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 893
Valuation - clearance of pipes - inter-connected undertakings - arms length price - applicability of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- From a conjoint reading of Section 4 (3) (b) of the Central Excise Act and Section 2 (g) of the MRTP Act, the Revenue is expected to clearly establish the relation as to inter-connection first, for which a little extra enquiry/investigation would be necessary. To establish the above, they have to place on record the complete shareholding pattern, the management pattern, the exercise of control by one over the other, etc., which are not there either in the Show Cause Notice or even in the grounds of the Revenue’s appeal. So also, Rule 10 (a) would apply only if such clause is specified in the Show Cause Notice under which the alleged relationship fitted. This is also for ....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 843
Valuation - printing and engraving charges - inclusion of extra charges collected by the appellant through debit notes in the assessable value - whether the appellant have availed credit in respect of manufacture of Printed Plastic Packing Bags? - Claim of benefit of exemption notifications 4/97-CE and 5/98-CE where no credit is availed - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice itself admitted that the appellant have availed modvat credit on inputs such as granules used in Lay Flat Tubing. As regards other inputs, whether the credit is availed or otherwise, the same was not produced by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority in the de-novo adjudication - if the appellant have not taken any credit on inputs used in the manufacture of Printed Plastic Packing Bags, even though the credit was availed on the inputs used in the manufacture of....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 801
CENVAT credit - paints which were used for job work activities - cost of paints have been separately shown in the invoices and not recovered from the manufacture - allegation that the appellant was not paying Central Excise duty for the said job work - benefit of N/N. 214/1986-CE dated 25.03.1986 - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Larger Branch of this Tribunal in case of STERLITE INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE [2004 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] held that the job worker, who has received the goods from the manufacturer under Rule 57F of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, entitled to Cenvat credit of duty paid in respect of input received directly and used by him in the manufacture of said goods on a job work basis. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (1) TMI 761
CENVAT Credit - excess found goods - credit denied and penalty imposed on the ground that the goods were found physically excess as compared with statutory record in the stocks - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has not denied the fact that on the same facts a Show Cause Notices as already been issued to the appellants on 01.07.1994 to deny Cenvat credit. Further, on the same invoices the impugned show cause notice has been issued to the appellant on 28.02.1996. The impugned show cause notice is barred by limitation as the fact of availment of Cenvat credit was not in the knowledge of the Revenue while issuing Show Cause Notice dated 01.07.1994. The impugned show cause notice is not sustainable, consequently, the demand raised against the appellant to deny Cenvat credit is not sustainable - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (1) TMI 760
CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the manufacturer are non-existent - HELD THAT:- No investigation have been conducted with the transporters to ascertain the fact whether the transporter has directly supplied the goods to the appellant or not - Moreover, the appellant sought cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements have been relied upon by the Revenue and no such cross-examination was granted. The case has been made out against the appellants on the basis that the manufacturers are not existent. In fact, the appellant has purchased the goods from M/s Shree Mahalaxmi Scrap Trading Co,. a dealer who has issued the proper invoice and same has been accompanying with the goods, the buying manufacturer was not required to ascertain the fact whether the manufacturer is existent or not. Admittedly, nothing adverse has been brou....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 759
Classification of goods - Rexona - Lux - whether classified under S. H. No. 3401.10 of CETA or under sub-heading 3307.30 of CETA? - CBEC Circular No. 31/89 dt. 12/05/1989 - HELD THAT:- The issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of appellants themselves in the case of HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR [2002 (10) TMI 143 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] and was upheld by the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR VERSUS HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. [2013 (8) TMI 722 - SC ORDER], where it was held that the item in question is soap only for classification under Chapter Heading 34 and it is not bath preparation for classification under Heading 33.07 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as contended by the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (1) TMI 758
CENVAT Credit - input service distribution - Credit distributed by their head office as ISD is denied - input services or not - HELD THAT:- As it is not disputed at the end of the head office, therefore, the admissibility of Cenvat credit cannot be disputed at the end of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on the disputed services in question and, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (1) TMI 757
Valuation - Waste and scrap - waste and scrap used captively for Manufacture of exempted reprocessed granules - benefit of N/N. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - captive consumption - Whether the valuation should be done in terms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules that is on Cost Construction Method or on the comparable value of waste and scrap sold to independent customer on Principle to Principle basis? HELD THAT:- The waste and scrap consumed captively and sold to independent buyers are one and the same. There is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that the waste and scrap cleared for captive consumption and the one sold to the independent buyers are different. No investigation was carried out to establish that the waste and scrap sold and captively consumed are different in nature. Also, the waste and scrap as generated in the c....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 756
Benefit of N/N. 254/87-CX dated 25.11.1987 - demand duty in respect of the man made fabrics cleared by them - admissible limit of percentage of polyester in manmade fabric - HELD THAT:- Commissioner (Appeals) has in the impugned order denied the benefit of the Board’s Letter 261/19/12/76- CX.8 dated 25.2.1977 - We are not in position to agree with the views expressed by the Commissioner (Appeal) for the reason that it is based on erroneous reading of the said letter. The finding recorded by Commissioner (Appeal) to the effect that the said Board letter applies only to rayon/ artificial silk and not polyester has been rejected by the tribunal in case of MORARJEE GOCULDAS SPG. & WVG. CO. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., MUMBAI [1997 (12) TMI 365 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] where it was held that It is evident therefore that in order to arrive a....... + More