• Follow
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com   
Case Laws
Home Case Index Central Excise
Law
Court
Landmark
Citation -
 

Showing 101 to 120 of 59484 Records

Central Excise - Case Laws

 

2016 (4) TMI 542 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Control Engineering Company Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kol-III

Recovery of incorrectly taken cenvat Credit - Shortages found in the stock of certain static converters - Non addition of 15 to the input value & making adjustment of the excess quantity of LG static converter found during stock - Held that - Adjudicating authority while deciding the issue in remand proceeding, allowed appellants contention on 15 value addition & reduced the duty & penalty amount to ₹ 2,39,474/-. First appellate authority while deciding the issue further gave relief to the appellant with respect to penalty imposed by the Adjudicating authority. - So for as ad ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 541 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II Versus Shri K.B. Chougula, M/s Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Shri M.L. Shinde, Mohd. Handu Saifulla Choudhary, Shri Kiran J Patil And M/s Steel India Company

Admissibility of Cenvat credit - Goods not received in the factory - Revenue contended that it is not the responsibility of the Revenue to establish that the goods were not received but the responsibility of petitioner - Held that - it is clear from the text of the Rule that the onus of establishing that the goods have been received is on the person who has taken the credit. The show-cause notice invoked the said rule and produced certain evidence in the shape of statements and documents. Some statements have been retracted, however, there has been no effort on the part of respondents to fulfi ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 540 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Versus M/s Kwality Metal Works, M/s SK Metal Industries, M/s MD Products

Classification - Brass granules - Whether to be classified under CETH 7403.21 or under CETH 74.06 - Held that - it is observed that first appellate authority has relied upon HSN explanatory notes for chapter heading 74.06, according to which bronze powder is also classifiable under 74.06. It is also observed that as per Section Note 7 of Section-XV of the CETA composite articles are to be classified on the basis of the base metal that predominates by weight over each of the other metal. In the present case copper predominates by weight and brass granules has to be treated as copper granules on ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 494 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Calcutta Export Company Versus Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-II

Period of limitation - Refund claim under Notification No. 41/2007-ST dated 6.10.2007 - Held that - the refund claim filed by the appellant pertain to the quarter January to March, 2008 and the period for filing the refund claim during the relevant clause of notification was 60 days from the end of the relevant quarter during which the said goods had been exported as per clause 2(E) of Notification. The refund claim was filed by the appellant on 30.06.2008 which was beyond the period of 60 days. This period was extended to six months as per Notification No. 32/08-ST dated 18.11.2008. However, ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 493 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Castleton Tea Co. (P) Ltd. Versus CCE-Kol-II

Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004(CCR) - Whether the appellant is required to pay 10 amount when common inputs are used in the manufacture of finished goods which are exempted as well as dutiable - Manufacture of Garden Rakes, Forks, Box Hinges fully exempted as per Notification No.5/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 unconditionally. - Held that - as per Rule 6(1)ibid, no credit shall be admissible in relation to manufacture of exempted goods. It has not been denied by the appellant that the goods manufactured by them are not unconditionally exempted. Simply by paying duty on exempted goods do ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Bolpur Versus M/s. Vision Sponge Iron Pvt. Ltd.

Admissibility of Cenvat credit - Rule 2(a)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 - Inputs like TOT/TMT Rods, Cement used in the manufacture of water tank to purify water for use in their Captive Power Plan - Revenue contended that the said storage tank is fully embedded to the ground and not remain goods - Held that - by relying on the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II vs. SLR Steels Ltd. 2012 (9) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT as considered by the First Appellate ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 491 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Versus M/s. Kamini Ferrous Ltd.

Denial of Cenvat credit and demand of duty - Clandestine removal of goods - Shortage of raw materials - Procurement of Bazar s scrap without cover of invoices - Excess production of finished goods as per private records maintained - Held that - Revenue cannot deny the CENVAT Credit and simultaneously confirm duty liability on the finished goods. The shortage of raw materials on which CENVAT Credit is proposed to be denied has to be considered as used in the manufacture of finished goods along with Bazar s scrap illicitly procured by the Respondent for the manufacture of finished goods which ha ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 449 - DELHI HIGH COURT

LML Ltd. Versus Union of India And Others

Demand of Modvat credit - Wrongly availed - Manufacturer of two wheeler scooters - Duty paid on High Speed Diesel oil (HSD) used both for generating electricity and as fuel - Held that - the order dated 15.9.2003 records the considered stand of the Department in the matter. In other words the statement made by the Department before the Supreme Court that refund has already been given to the Petitioner holds good and reflects the position that the Department has accepted the orders of the Dy CE and CCE (A) which were affirmed by the order dated 25.2.2003 of the CEGAT. By the last mentioned orde ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 448 - DELHI HIGH COURT

M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd. Versus UOI & Others

Validity of order - Manufacturer of various types of motor vehicles - Whether the pendency of the Petitioner s RA before the CESTAT satisfies the requirement for acceptance of the Petitioner s declaration under the KVSS - Respondent did not consider the declaration filed by petitioner because the RA was pending before the CESTAT but not admitted - Held that - it has been clarified even in the circular issued by the CBDT that If the taxpayer has filed within the statutory time a legally valid reference application under Section 256(1) or 256(2) of the IT Act (corresponding to Section 35G of the ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 447 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Alom Extrusion Ltd. Versus M/s. Commr. of Central Excise, Kolkata-II

Entitlement for refund of accumulated Cenvat credit - Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Finished goods supplied to deemed exports areas - Held that - by relying on the decision of Hon ble Gujrat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs Vs. NBM Industries 2011 (9) TMI 360 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT which was relied upon their earlier decision in the case of Commissioner Vs. Shilpa Copper Wire Industries 2010 (2) TMI 711 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the appellant ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 446 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Covestro (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE, Pondicherry

Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Inputs supplied to the job worker and those procured on their own account for manufacture have been inter utilised whenever required - Held that - inputs meant for manufacture on job work cannot be utilised for manufacture on their own account and vice versa. Such removal according to revenue would be construed as diversion of inputs or removal outside the factory for home consumption inviting reversal of credit or payment of duty but there is no provision in the Act or Rules or in Cenvat Credit Rules treating such inter utilization of inputs as prohi ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 445 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Consumer Associates Versus CCE, Salem

Demand of interest and penalty - Manufacture of Sodium Hyrochlorite and Bleach Liquor by availing SSI exemption - Exemption limit of 30 lakhs in a financial year exceeded - Appellants have produced only the certificates issued by the suppliers of inputs which did not contain the information regarding the amount of duty and also no claim of Modvat credit of duty paid on such transactions was made. - Held that - the submission that on remand, the lower authority cannot expand the scope of the remand direction would fit in for any other circumstance as factual position but not with regard to inte ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 444 - CESTAT MUMBAI

M/s Central Capacitors, M/s Omega Scientific, M/s Vidarbha Cables And M/s Central Cables Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur

Demand of duty and imposition of penalty - Revenue has not filed any appeal against order in original - Held that - the revenue cannot go beyond the duties demanded and penalties imposed in the said order. The Commissioner in the impugned order has gone much beyond that by not only increasing the demand four fold but also enhanced the penalties many fold. Thus the commissioner s order is no ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 443 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Versus M/s Heg Ltd.

Duty liability - Denial of exemption Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - Manufacture of Sponge Iron - Char/dolochar produced in the process are captively consumed for generation of electricity but most of the electricity so produced are not used in appellant s factory - Held that - the electricity generated in the respondent unit is not solely using char/dolochar. Out of three boilers, 2 are working on heat recovery of waste gases coming out of the sponge iron kiln for production of steam, the third one is a combustion type in which solid fuels like coal, coal fires, char/dolochar are ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 373 - CESTAT KOLKATA

M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-III

Reversal of Cenvat credit - Inputs found short in the factory premises of the appellant - Appellant contended that shortages found in the factory premises were written off as per Cost Accounting System so demand of duty cannot be made because the period of demand is 2002-03 to 2005-06 and the provisions for reversal of CENVAT Credit with respect to shortages in inputs and capital goods on writing off was introduced as per Notification No.26/2007-CE(NT) dated 11.05.2007 hence no CENVAT Credit is required to be reversed - Held that - the shortages written off by the appellant were never found av ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 372 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

M/s. Shivam Castings, Shri Samir J Sethia, Shri PSR Sastry And Ors. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Rajkot

Restoration of appeal - Dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by way of remand - Revenue argues that Tribunal has not dismissed the appeal but had ordered all the appeals are allowed by way of remand - Held that - the Tribunal has gone into merits of the case of the appeals and observed that the demand was proposed on the ground of clandestine removal of the goods and the contention of the Revenue is that the adjudicating authority had not considered the evidences in proper manner. In view of the said facts and circumstances, the Tribunal held that it is difficult to proceed in the matter a ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 371 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Soundarya Decorators Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Availment of Cenvat credit - Service tax paid on outdoor catering and rent a cab service - Appellant claimed that period of dispute is prior to 01.04.2011 and hence, they are eligible for credit though they have taken credit of the said services in their cenvat account during June, 2011 - Held that - the appellant has availed Cenvat credit facility on outdoor catering service provided in the factory premises to its employees and also provided rent a cab service to its employees/officers of the Company for commuting to and from the factory premises to attend to their business activities of the ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 370 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Murugappa Morgan Thermal Ceramics Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III

Eligibility of Cenvat credit - Service tax paid on Health Insurance Services for the coverage of employees, spouse, dependent children and parents etc. - Department contended that the impugned service is not covered under the definition of the input service vide Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, Held that - it is found that when employees are at work in the factory, if an accident happens, the employer is liable to pay compensation and a prudent businessman will be interested in taking an accident insurance policy for his workers to cover the business risk and it cannot be considered tha ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 369 - CESTAT CHENNAI

M/s. Indo Shell Mould Ltd. Versus CCE, Coimbatore

Disallowance of Cenvat credit - Availed credit on 22.08.2009, whereas, the capital goods have been cleared from the factory on 18.05.2009 itself - Revenue contended that cenvat credit is not to be allowed as the appellants were not in possession of the said capital goods on that date- Held that - On going through the provisions of Rule 4(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the proviso clearly mentions, that cenvat credit in respect of capital goods shall be allowed for the whole amount of the duty paid on such capital goods in the same financial year if such capital goods are cleared as such in the sam ....... - .......


2016 (4) TMI 327 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

M/s Real Ispat And Power Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Raipur

Demand of duty alongwith interest - Disallowance of Cenvat credit for short received coal as the quantity was not found short in other consignments - Coal was sent to Coal Washery for processing of coal so that it can be used in the manufacturing process - Appellant contended that The loss of weight due to removal of ash content, mud, fines occurred due to such coal washing process has to be considered as arising during the course of manufacture of final product and credit has to be allowed. - Held that - it is found from the records that since the other consignments of coal were not sent for ....... - .......


....6........
 
 
 

what is new what is new

Latest Updates

Featured

Subscription

Experts

More Options

Communication




|| About us || Contact us || Feed Back || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map || ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Website