|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 412 Records
-
2017 (9) TMI 2028 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Exemption from excise duty as per N/N.76/86 dated 10.02.1986 and Board Circular No.76-73/6/2004 dated 28.01.2004 - manufacturing readymade garments & accessories - period of 01.03.2002 to 15.03.2004 - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- It appears that the appellant was found to have mis-declared the subject goods as handicrafts in E.R.-1. The process of manufacture was not disclosed, it came to the notice only when the officers have visited the factory premises. The appellant was also paying the duty suo-moto by considering that items as subject to duty. It is only after the visit of the factory, the demand was confirmed though the show cause notice was issued earlier.
Due to the mis-declaration and non supply of the process, the notice is not time bared.
On following the ratio laid down in the case of COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI VERSUS LOUIS SHOPPE [1995 (3) TMI 108 - SC ORDER] where the major portion of the work was done by the machine too, hence, there are no infirmity in the impugned order. The same is hereby sustained alongwith the reasons mentioned therein.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund of excise duty paid on the coal at notified price at the time of clearance which had been subsequently reduced - Price variation clause - HELD THAT:- It appears that an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the assessee-Appellants’ own case M/S SOUTH EASTERN COAL FIELDS LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, RAIPUR [2016 (12) TMI 221 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority.
The impugned order is set aside - matter remanded to the original authority - the appeal filed by the assessee Appellants is allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2020 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - molasses is bye product arising in the course of manufacturer of sugar and it is used for other dutiable as well as non dutiable goods - HELD THAT:- The substantial question of law framed on 18th February, 2015 is accordingly answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
The First Appeal is disposed of.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2017 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy available u/s 35-B of CEA Act, 1944 - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
There shall be interim stay of the operation of impugned judgment.
-
2017 (9) TMI 2006 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Abatement claim under Compounded Levy scheme - all the four machines were closed - Department has not allowed abatement by mentioning that the abatement is allowable by way of refund - HELD THAT:- It appears that in the case of TRIMURTI FRAGRANCES PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-III [2015 (8) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] it was observed that this issue stands settled in favour of the appellant by the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of STEEL INDUSTRIES OF HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL AREA VERSUS CCE., GHAZIABAD [2013 (10) TMI 172 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein in respect of similar provisions regarding levy of duty on compounded basis in respect of iron and steel product, Hon’ble High Court had held that for claiming the abatement for the period of closure of the factory, depositing duty for the whole month is not a pre-condition and that in such cases the duty would be required to be paid only for the number of days for which a factory was working.
It may be mentioned that in the factory, there were only four machines. If four machines are sealed then certainly factory is closed for the purpose of production. From the impugned order, it is not clear that for what period the four machines were closed. In other words, when the factory was closed.
Matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the period for closure of the factory and allow the suo motto abatement but by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1996 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Admissibility of appeal - HELD THAT:- Tax Appeal is ADMITTED for consideration of the following substantial question of law.
Whether Hon’ble Tribunal committed error in setting aside the demand of Central Excise duty in respect of utilization of Cenvat credit of Basic Excise Duty for discharge of Education Cess payable on finished goods for the period July, 2009 to March, 2010 during which the assessee was availing the benefits of area based exemption under Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-2001?
-
2017 (9) TMI 1995 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of CENVAT Credit - tax charged by provider of foreign travel, research & development and outward courier services - period between June 2013 and January 2014 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the foreign travel expenses were incurred for staff to travel abroad for business purposes. Appellant is a manufacturer and the business of manufacturing does not preclude activities relating to manufacture outside the country. Likewise, the courier was entrusted with dispatch of documents and correspondence from the office of the appellant which can be presumed to have been in connection with its principal activity. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that research & development could have been in connection with anything other than manufacture.
It would appear that the disallowance were on frivolous grounds without considering the nature of the services - Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1993 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - Appealable order or not - Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- In the present case Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has passed an order which is impugned in the present case and the same is appealable under the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944.
Resultantly, admission is declined with a liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1990 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - Cement and Asbestos sheet - credit denied on the ground that these are neither input nor capital goods in terms of Rule 2(k) or Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 during the period September, 2009 to April, 2010 whereas show cause notice has been issued on 23.09.2011 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts that the issue of availment of cenvat credit on these goods was in dispute and the same has been resolved by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)]. In that circumstances, extended period of limitation is not invokable.
In the similar facts in the case of M/S. KM SUGAR MILLS LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, ALLAHABAD [2014 (11) TMI 1084 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] this Tribunal held that in such circumstances the extended period of limitation is not invokable - Admittedly, the show cause notice has been issued in the matter by invoking extended period of limitation. In that circumstances, the show cause notice is barred by limitation.
The appeal is allowed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1969 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of differential duty - impurities like iron, zinc, magnesium etc. overemphasized - allegation is that appellant was deliberately showing impurities in the scrap and paying the less Central Excise duty on iron and steel scrap cleared during the period under consideration - Applicability of Board circular No. 1029/17/2016 CX. dated 10.5.2016 - retrospective effect - HELD THAT:- The Board has issued a circular No. 1029/17/2016 CX. dated 10.5.2016 where a clarification was given on segregation of impurities like iron, steel, rubber , plastic, dust etc. in respect of brass scrap. The above circular is clarificatory in nature. So, it is applicable retrospectively. This clarification was not available at the time of adjudication.
The issue should be decided in the light of circular. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh in the light of clarification issued by the Circular, but by providing the opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1957 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Refund of service tax paid - full price to be borne by appellant or some part to be recoverable from the buyers - denial of refund on the ground of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- In this case, it is a fact on record that price of sugar is fixed, therefore, whatever duty is payable by the appellant, the same is borne by appellant and no part of duty is recoverable from the buyers as the price of sugar is includible in all taxes in the fixed price of sugar. In these circumstances, bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1942 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Whether the Hon’ble CESTAT has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal relating to loss of goods in storage, in a factory, or in a warehouse, in contravention of the provisions envisaged in the proviso(a) to the Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not? - HELD THAT:- From the record it is clear that no such contention was raised before the tribunal. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to entertain the question of law at this stage.
The appeal stands dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1911 - SC ORDER
Filter Cake emanated from the affluent plant - excisability / marketability - it was held by CESTAT that goods not excisable - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the present appeals. Admission refused. The civil appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1893 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - capital goods - plant, structures, embedded to earth - angles, joists, beam, channels, bars, flats which go into fabrication of such structures - HELD THAT:- Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944; for short, 'the Act', is a rule making power. Section 37(2)(xvia) provide for the credit of duty paid or deemed to have been paid on the goods used in, or in relation to, the manufacture of excisable goods. Section 37 (2A) of the Act – The power to make rules conferred by clause (xvi) of sub-section (2) shall include the power to give retrospective effect to rebate of duties on inputs used in the export goods from a date not earlier than the changes in the rates of duty on such inputs. Though the power to make rules include the power to give retrospective effect, while doing so the provision under consideration is neither made retrospective nor could it be treated as one.
The questions formulated in these appeals in favour of the Assessees and against the Revenue.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1869 - CESTAT BANGALORE
CENVAT Credit - common input services used for the manufacturing activity of finished goods and for the trading activities - input services - Management Consultancy Services - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules were amended by insertion of an explanation which indicated trading activity is an exempted services. Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the judgment of M/S. FL SMIDTH PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (12) TMI 699 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], settled the law that explanation inserted from 1-4-2011 will apply for the period prior to 1-4-2011 also and following the said ratio, it is held that the trading activities undertaken by the appellant during the period in question has to be treated as an exempted services - Since it is undisputed that appellant is manufacturer of excisable goods and is discharging appropriate central excise duty, the proportionate Cenvat credit attributable to the trading activity needs to be reversed and the same should be arrived based upon the provisions of Rule 6(3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
CENVAT Credit - input services - Management Consultancy Services - HELD THAT:- The said sub-rule starts with a non obstante clause, which would mean that this sub-rule has to be read independently and it provides for availment entire Cenvat credit even if the same is used for manufacturing of dutiable and exempted goods and are providing taxable and exempted services. In my view, appellants have made out a case for availment of the entire Cenvat credit of the service tax paid on Management Consultancy Services as per the above reproduced sub-rule - demand set aside.
Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- Since the demands are set aside on this ground, the question of interest does not arise.
Penalty - HELD THAT:- Since the issue is of interpretation no penalty is warranted on the appellant - The penalties are set aside.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1828 - SC ORDER
Stay on recovery proceedings - grant of subsidy - area based exemption - fiscal benefits as have been notified in the Government Notification No. 1 (10)/2001-NER, dated 7-1-2003 and Notification No. 49/2003, dated 10-6-2003 and Notification No. 50/2003, dated 10-6-2003.
HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1825 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - issue with respect to valuation/rate of duty - Section 35G of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- Considering Section 35G of the Central Excise Act when it is not in dispute that one of the issue/question involved in the present Tax Appeals is also with respect to rate of duty/value of goods, among other things, the present Appeals before this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act against the impugned common judgment and order passed by the Tribunal shall not be maintainable.
Appeal dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1818 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund of service tax - Input services - Business Auxiliary Service - denial on the ground of nexus with output services - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the definition and the nature of the disputed services, it reveals that none of the services mentioned therein are falling under the excluded category, as per such definition. Thus, usage of the disputed service for ultimate exportation of taxable service, having been not disputed by the Department, denial of Cenvat benefit, is not proper and justified.
Incorrect mention of address - HELD THAT:- The address mentioned in the invoices is the same as mentioned in the service tax registration certificate. Thus, rejection of refund on such ground is not sustainable.
Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1816 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - input services - Construction /cleaning service undertaken at its residential colony, guest house and other places, situated outside the factory area - HELD THAT:- The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of appellant itself, wherein, by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Anthra Pradesh High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUS. & C. EX., HYDERABAD-III VERSUS ITC LIMITED [2011 (11) TMI 516 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] the Tribunal has allowed the Cenvat benefit in respect of the services used /utilized in the residential colony and the guest house, which were situated at a place away from the factory.
The Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant in respect of the taxable services should merit consideration as input service for the purpose of availment of cenvat benefit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (9) TMI 1808 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
The Tribunal, apart from making reference to the judicial precedents as would apply, had also marshalled the facts of the case to conclude, essentially on facts that there is no sustainable ground to uphold the order impugned before it. The findings rendered by the Tribunal, particularly, in paragraph-8 of the impugned order, is sufficient for us to conclude to the said effect.
The findings rendered by the Tribunal do not generate any substantial question of law for interference by answering it in favour of the Revenue - appeal dismissed.
........
|
