2017 (9) TMI 620 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Chandpaklal Ramanlal Shah And Anr. Versus Reliance Industries Ltd.
Evasion of duty - CENVAT credit - omission of Rule 56A - Held that - The ingredient of the offence is the evasion. The omission of a procedural rule for availing the credit cannot in any manner affect the said charge. The prosecution cannot be deprived of opportunity to prove evasion which by itself is an offence. In this view of the matter, there was no justification for the High Court to quash the charge merely on the ground of Rule 56A having ....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner Service Tax Commissionerate Noida Versus M/s. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Condonation of delay - Refund claim - the decision in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Noida Versus M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT contested - Held that - Delay condoned - Leave granted........ + More
2017 (9) TMI 618 - SUPREME COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Versus M/s Nova Industries (P) Ltd Etc. Etc.
SSI Exemption - Clubbing of clearances - Clandestine removal of goods - the decision in the case of M/s. Nova Industries (P) Ltd. Versus CCE- Chandigarh 2015 (5) TMI 99 - CESTAT NEW DELHI contested - Held that - Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order is allowed - Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as in appeal........ + More
2017 (9) TMI 617 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Versus M/s. Suresh Synthetics
100 EOU - Deemed export - whether the CESTAT was right in reversing the judgment of the adjudicating authority by holding that respondent assessee who was 100 EOU unit was not required to pay duty on its domestic clearance against foreign exchange remittance? - Held that - In case of Maruti Cottex Limited 2004 (12) TMI 215 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , the Tribunal held that the clearances to DFRC holders and also to supplies against foreign exchange can....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 616 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Rolex Industries (Rolex Rings PVT. LTD. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise& Customs
Benefit of N/N. 214/86 and N/N. 208/83 - denial on the ground that the procedure required to avail the benefit of notification not followed - Whether the CESTAT, Mumbai was correct in holding that the applicant is not eligible for the benefit of N/N. 208/83 and/or 214/86 as the case may be and the duty as confirmed is payable though the documentary evidence to prove the eligibility of exemption are available with the department? - Held that - the....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 615 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
M/s Tirupati Structurals Limited Versus CCE & ST, Ghaziabad
CENVAT credit - rejected goods - Rule 16 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - similar issue decided in the appellant own case M/s. Tirupati Structurals Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ghaziabad 2015 (4) TMI 1032 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that goods returned by the appellant are not waste and scrap/ash and they are rejected goods and credit remains allowed - appellant has correctly taken the Cenvat....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 614 - CESTAT MUMBAI
BB Chemicals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise
Demand of interest - credit reversed by the appellant - The appellants have argued that in terms of Section 11B clause 11 (ce) of the explanation, the appellants are required to pay interest only from the date of the order of JS (RA) and not from the date when they had taken the credit - Held that - Section 11AB (1) of the Act mandates to pay interest in addition to the duty erro0neously refunded from the date of sanction of such erroneous refund....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Kathuria and Sons Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I
CENVAT credit - fake invoices - issuance of invoices without issue of goods - issuance of second SCN by invoking extended period of limitation - Held that - in this case, investigation was conducted at the end of M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. and it was alleged that M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. were indulged in manipulating their accounts. On the basis of that investigation, a SCN was issued to the appellant for imposition of penalty on the basi....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 612 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
M/s. Dabur India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad
CENVAT credit - sub Rule (3A) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules - validity of SCN - Held that - had appellant availed Cenvat credit attributable to both excisable goods as well as exempted goods then the question of examination for invocation of Sub-rule 2, 3 & 3A of said Rule 6 could have arisen. Since the appellant had availed such Cenvat credit which was attributable to excisable goods, the situation is covered by the Sub-rule (1) of Ru....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 611 - CESTAT MUMBAI
M/s Hind Rectifiers Ltd. Versus CCE, Mumbai
CENVAT credit - input services - denial on account of nexus - Held that - the CENVAT credit with respect to freight outwards of ₹ 32,482/- have been remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration, CENVAT credit relating to canteen services, labour charges on civil work, telecommunication services are confirmed as not contested. So far the other services are concerned, all have been allowed - appeal is allowed and is remanded onl....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 610 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Versus CCE, Raipur
Unjust enrichment - Refund claim of excess duty paid - rejection on the ground that the appellant has not opted for provisional assessment during the impugned period - Whether the appellant has been able to discharge their burden of unjust enrichment or not? - Held that - Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to show that the buying unit has taken cenvat credit of excess duty paid by the appellant. The allegation of the Revenue is only b....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 609 - CESTAT MUMBAI
HYT Engineering Co. P. Ltd. Versus CCE, Pune I
Demand of interest - penalty - credit reversed without utilising the same - Held that - in a situation where credit is reversed prior to utilisation thereof interest cannot be demanded - the assessee has not utilised the said credit, the demand of interest on the credit reversed before utilising the same is set aside. - Penalty - Held that - It is not understood as how an error can occur where credit is taken without any documents. This can only ....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 608 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Hindustan Composites Ltd. Versus CCE Aurangabad
Jurisdiction - CENVAT credit - input - sulphur powder received on payment of duty - Held that - It is not open to the revenue officers having jurisdiction over the purchaser to question the assessment made by the officers having jurisdiction over the suppliers - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant........ + More
2017 (9) TMI 607 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Globe Trotters Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Aurangabad
MODVAT/CENVAT credit - furnace oil - Revenue sought to deny the credit essentially on the ground that the said goods were not brought in the factory of the appellant but were sent to the premises of the adjacent unit where boiler and furnace was installed - Rule 57I of the Central Excise Rules 1944 - Held that - Its apparent from this Rule 57B(1) of Central Excise Rules 1944 that credit of inputs used for generation of steam would be allowed prov....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 606 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Matsyodari Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Aurangabad
CENVAT credit - ingots purchased from a dealer - duty paying documents - Held that - In the ordinary course of circumstances, where a proper invoice is produced and proof of payment along with gate register and Form 4 is presented the receipt of the goods is not challenged by the revenue - In the instant case, The appellant have not produced any document whatsoever like gate register, LR, Transport document or any other regarding in terms of Rule....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 605 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
M/s Uttam Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut
CENVAT credit - pipes, tubes and items falling under Chapter-85 - capital goods - Held that - the Cenvat credit on pipes, tubes and items falling under Chapter-85 which are admissible within the definition of capital goods and therefore show cause notice does not sustain in respect of them. - The demand of Cenvat credit beyond the period of one year without invoking extended period in the SCN - Held that - as extended period not invoked, demand n....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 604 - CESTAT MUMBAI
M/s The Paper Products Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III
CENVAT credit - loss of finished goods and semi-finished goods destroyed by fire - Held that - Following the principles of law in the case of Union of India Vs. Martin Lottery Agencies Ltd. 2009 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it can be concluded that the provision which imposes a burden is always considered declaratory and cannot be applied retrospectively. Therefore, the provision introduced in 2007 requiring reversal of CENVAT Credit at t....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 590 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Commissioner, Service Tax Commissionerate, Noida Versus M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Refund claim - Whether the Hon ble CESTAT was correct in allowing the CENVAT credit of the services used at unregistered premises and refund thereof? - Held that - the refund could not be denied to the assessee merely on the basis of non-registration of the premises - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant........ + More
2017 (9) TMI 549 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
M/s. Prism Cement Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal
CENVAT credit - GTA service for outward transportation service - Held that - the goods in question cleared from the factory of the appellants to their packing plant, the appellant remained the owner of the said goods. And it is a fact that the cost of goods transportation agent services has been included in the assessable value of the goods, therefore, in the light of CBEC Circular No.97/8/07 dated 23.8.07, the appellant is entitled to avail cenv....... + More
2017 (9) TMI 548 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Shri Vidyadhar V. Muley Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad
Penalty u/r 26 of the CEA, 2002 in the capacity of Authorized Signatory of main noticee - case of appellant is that once the appellant has paid the entire Central Excise duty along with interest and 25 penalty of the said duty within 30 days receipt of the SCN, under proviso to sub Section 2 of Section 11A of the CEA, all proceedings stand concluded - Held that - The case of the appellant is squarely covered by the decision of Hon ble High Court ....... + More
............
