2017 (8) TMI 786 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai And Vice-Versa
CENVAT credit - packing material - The main allegation in the show cause notice is that the credit is not eligible as it was availed by the assessee under the erstwhile Rule 6 of Service Tax Credit Rules, 2002 and also for the reason that the advertisement and insurance services have no nexus with the output service of clearing and forwarding agent service - Held that - In a catena of decisions, it has been held that when input services, are rela....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 785 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Birla Corporation Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow
Unjust enrichment - refund claim - Section 4A of the Central Excise Act - whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is attracted where the appellants have cleared the goods on MRP based assessment, as required under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act? - Held that - this Tribunal in the case of Amadalavalasa Cooperative Sugars Ltd 2007 (1) TMI 432 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and in the case of Girish Foods & Beverages 2007 (2) TMI 28 - CESTAT, MUMBA....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 784 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Indian Refrigerator Company Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
CENVAT credit - department was of the view that appellants are not eligible for availing credit on the mixer-grinder assembly received by them - whether the appellants are eligible to avail credit on the mixer-grinder assembly received by them from M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd.? - Held that - It is not disputed that at the time of clearance of the combi pack containing both refrigerator and mixer-grinder, the appellant have paid excise duty on th....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 783 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
M/s. Well Rope International Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi
Classification of goods - plastic ropes - Whether the report of the chemical examiner is admissible or not if the same is admissible whether the goods are correctly classifiable as plastic ropes to demand duty or not? - Held that - the report of the chemical examiner is doubtful. Accordingly, the same cannot be the basis to determine the quality/classification of the goods in question manufactured form LDPE. - Whether any evidence has brought on ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 782 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Bhandari Foils & Tubes Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Bhopal
CENVAT credit - Channels, Plates, TMT bars etc. - inputs - capital goods - Rule 2 (k) and Rule 2 (a) (A) of Cenvat Credit of Rules, 2004 - Held that - the matter is covered by Tribunal s decisions in cases of CC & CCE., Vishakhapatnam-II V/s APP Mills Ltd. 2013 (7) TMI 494 - CESTAT BANGALORE and Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut-II 2016 (3) TMI 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD , whereunder Cenvat credit for subject items has been allowed to the asse....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 781 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
M/s Xerox India Ltd., Shri. A.K. Srivastava, Senior Manager, Shri. S.K. Gupta, Finance Controller Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut
Manufacture - process of kitting various sub assemblies were grouped into a kit and the kit also including certain components which were procured indigenously - It appeared to Revenue that such activity of kitting was assembly of machines by putting together various components to bring into a new machine and amounts to manufacture by invoking provision under Section Note 6 of Section XVI of Tariff Act - Held that - the requirement of facts for in....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 780 - CESTAT CHENNAI
ITC Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I
Reversal of cenvat credit after finished goods become exempted goods - N/N. 10/2003 - Held that - Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Tractor and Farm Equipment Ltd. Vs CCE Madurai-II - 2014 (12) TMI 905 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that If credit can be taken against excise duty on a final product manufactured on the very day, it makes it abundantly clear that there need not be co-relation between the input and the goods cleared and as a re....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Madhav Marbles & Granites Ltd. Versus CCE, Salem
Whether the imported resins used in the manufacture of polished granite is a raw material or consumable - 100 EOU - Notification No.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 - Interest - Penalty - Held that - In the case of Gem Granites Vs. Commissioner of customs, Seaport (Import), Chennai - 2007 (5) TMI 101 - CESTAT, CHENNAI wherein it was held that the Bench considered Notification No.23/03-C.E. as well. It also took into account the Development Commissioner1s c....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Prem Jain Ispat Udyog Pvt. Limited, Prem Chand Jain, Director, J.D. Pant, General Manager Versus CCE, (Prev.) Jaipur And (Vice-Versa)
Clandestine removal - On physical verification of stock of finished goods shortage of finished products to the extent of 88.209 MT was noticed - demand confirmed on the basis of the kachha slips and inculpatory statements given by Sh. J. D. Pant, General Manager as well as Sh. Prem Chand Jain, Director - Held that - since the adjudicating authority has given detailed findings that all the goods covered by 25 kachha parchis have been cleared on pa....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 777 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Indus Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III
Penalty - interest - compounded levy scheme - Appellant defaulted in discharging their duty liability for the period from November 1997 to March 1998, which was paid later - Held that - Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills Vs CCE 2015 (11) TMI 1172 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that demand of interest as well as the imposition of penalty under the said provisions of Central Excise Rules is ultra vires - inter....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 776 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bangalore-III Versus M/s. MAA Printers
Manufacture - job-work - printing of information - whether the process amounts to manufacture? - Held that - There is no manufacture in mere printing of information and this is settled law and there is no change in the product after the printing is carried out and the process cannot be said to be manufacture - The appellants were engaged in the activity of printing on paper certain instructions for use of goods which would be wrapped therein for ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 775 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus KSB Pumps Ltd
Utilisation of raw materials procured under CT-2 form - Revenue alleged that the raw materials received under CT-2 forms were not used in the manufacture of power driven pumps primarily designed for pumping water - Held that - raw materials procured under CT-2 form prescribes that the goods procured through these forms shall be subject to the conditions of N/N. 5/1998-CE dated 02/06/2000, No. 6/2000-CE 01/03/2000 and 3/2001-CE dated 01/03/2001 - ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 774 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Felis Leo Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune
SSI exemption - Clearance for export through merchant exporter - N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 28-2-2003 - Revenue alleged that the goods not cleared for home consumption cannot be cleared under concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 9/2003, hence demanded the differential duty - Held that - Unless it is shown that the clearance challenged by the Revenue is not within the total permissible clearance, exemption cannot be denied - appeal allowe....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 773 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Mercury Pneumatics Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai
Valuation - discount/commission - includibility - It is the case of the Revenue that this amount deducted as trade discount is nothing but commission while it is the case of the assessee-appellant that the amounts disputed are discount - whether discount/commission given to the sales agent is to be included in the assessable value? - Held that - One transaction of the sales is regarding direct sale to the customers which is executed and overridin....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 772 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II Versus Shreeji Engineering Works
Time limitation - for the purpose of demand within the normal period in terms of Section 11A(3)(ii)(a) which period will be covered? - penalty - Held that - according to Section 11A(3)(ii)(a) the period would be the six months prior to the date of issue of show cause notice i.e. the date on which the duty is to be paid under this act or the rules made thereunder. In view of this provision, it can be seen that for the purpose of show cause notice ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 764 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Welspring Universal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi
100 EOU - proceedings against appellant as well as on his partner - C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 11/2016-Cus., dated 15-3-2016 - co-noticee in the context of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The circular clarified that when the noticee pays up the entire duty, interest and penalty, under such circumstances the proceedings shall be considered as closed not only against the noticee but also against the other persons to whom any dem....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 701 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
M/s. Century Plyboards Limited, Shri Anoop Bansal Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rohtak
Clandestine removal - while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, there was clear-cut directions to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of clandestine removal in the light of guidelines in Para-14, in the case of Arya Fibers Limited 2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Held that - none of those guidelines have been followed in this case while alleging the clandestine removal against the appellant - the manufacturin....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 700 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
M/s. Century Ply-boards Limited, Shri Sanwat Ram Koori Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Rohtak
Clandestine removal - while remanding the matter back to the adjudicating authority, there was clear-cut directions to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of clandestine removal in the light of guidelines in Para-14, in the case of Arya Fibers Limited 2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - Held that - none of those guidelines have been followed in this case while alleging the clandestine removal against the appellant - the manufacturin....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 699 - CESTAT CHENNAI
M/s. Tamilnadu Newsprint & Papers Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy
Claiming concessional rate of duty - N/N. 4/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 - manufacturing of paper - It appeared to the department that the actual weight of pulp of materials other than excluded category was below the percentage stipulated - Held that - No doubt, the related SCN did invoke the entire demand on the ground of manipulation of records and there remains suppression of facts. However, in the previous Order of this Tribunal dated 24.5.2007, it h....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 698 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Shri. Mahalaxmi Distilleries, Amrit Lal Garg, Mahender Prasad Bansal, Kishore Aggarwal Versus CCE, Rohtak
Clandestine removal of goods - Principles of Natural Justice - Held that - the statements of the appellants were recorded, no investigation was conducted at the end of the appellants and the transporters were also not investigated to reveal the truth whether the clandestine removal of goods from M/s IFL and M/s IAPL were transported up to the place of appellants. Moreover, no cross examination of the persons whose statement was relied upon and so....... + More
