|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 190 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 441 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - SSI exemption ... ... ... ... ..... lso substantially inflated and according to him, the amount should be around Rs.16 lakhs that too without taking into account the eligible Cenvat credit on the duty paid on the inputs used for manufacture of the final product. 7. emsp On merits, we hold that applicant has not made out a case for waiver of the entire dues as per the impugned order. Regarding the claim of the applicant rsquo s financial hardship, we find that Shri Anil Jain is holding positions, and interest in other concerns and practically running the three groups concerns. Taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case into account, we direct M/s. Anubhav Enterprises to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs) within eight weeks from today and report compliance on 18th December 2008. Subject to deposit of the above amount, the pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalty is waived and recovery thereof, stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 440 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of order - Corrigendum to adjudication order ... ... ... ... ..... date of the expansion claim. It was clearly an omission in the main order-in-original and, therefore, the principle of functus officio could not be applied, and on that ground the order could not be set aside. It is clear that without mentioning the effective date of the benefit of expansion claim, the order-in-original would be an incomplete order. 2. emsp The consequence of the impugned order is that the respondent becomes entitled to refund, the order of the Commissioner, prima facie, being not sustainable, we are inclined to stay the operation of the order dated 28-3-2008, which is accordingly stayed till disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on the 10th day of October, 2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 439 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... t eligible to Modvat credit under Rule 57Q on the ground that though it helps in maintaining certain level of humidity to get the yarn of a particular quality but that by itself does not mean that it can be considered equipment for production, process or bringing about any change in the substance. The Tribunal decision in the case of Unichem Laboratories v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 197 (Tri.-Del.) cited by the assessee does not advance their cause as in this case the Tribunal did not allow the Modvat credit on the air-conditioner but remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the applicability of clause (a) under Explanation to Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the air-conditioner. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussions, I set aside the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 6. emsp The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 6-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 437 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Internal Combustion Engines captively consumed for manufacturing tractors and tillers ... ... ... ... ..... manufacture of tractors falling under heading 8701, will be classifiable under Chapter 84, and will be covered by the said notifications subject to fulfilment of other conditions. 6. emsp However, the learned Commissioner has not taken cognizance of this clarification by the Board on the ground that it will have only prospective effect. 7. emsp In this connection, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. CCE - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 579 (T) wherein similar issue was examined and benefit was given to the appellants by taking into account the Board rsquo s clarification in the matter. As the issue stands settled squarely in favour of the appellants and also in view of the Board rsquo s clarification, we are allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The impugned order is set aside. Thus, the stay application and appeal are decided in assessee rsquo s favour. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 433 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of appeal - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Rule 20 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982
-
2008 (10) TMI 432 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Paper - Waste paper - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... lty and interest. His mentioning, in passing, that the Appellants were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 10/96 without the Appellants being put to notice for the same, cannot be a valid finding. The Appellants had right to pursue the Refund Claim in the parallel proceeding which was initiated earlier and separately. 8. emsp In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the Original Authority for examining with reference to available documentary evidence and any other evidence to be produced by the Appellants as to whether they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 10/96-C.E. dated 23-7-96. We order accordingly, set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Original Authority. He shall pass a fresh Order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 431 - COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE
Cenvat/Modvat - Inputs - Cenvat credit availed inputs cleared as scrap ... ... ... ... ..... e products not usable as such are Waste and Scrap. And further, in case of Nagpal Electric v. CCE, 2005 (179) E.L.T. 346 (CESTAT SMB), input of copper tubes became waste during manufacture. It was held that it cannot be said that inputs are cleared lsquo as such rsquo and hence, duty is payable only on scrap value. From above discussions, it is clear that appellant have not cleared input as such rather they have cleared unusable rejected roughly shaped steel, which was of not any use for appellant as waste and scrap. In these circumstances and case laws discussed supra, appellant is entitled to avail the Cenvat credit on inputs, if its (inputs) fails on quality control as well as if inputs become waste during manufacture. Thus, in view of the above facts the demand of differential duty from the appellant deserves to be set aside. And once if the demand is not sustainable the penalty under Section 15 is not warranted. Hence, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2008 (10) TMI 429 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... es (2) Charger Loading (3) Preheating (4) Polymer Spray Coating (5) Sintering (6) Blue Light Inspection (7) Charger Unloading (8) Oiling (9) Wrapping (9A) Saloon Packing (9B) Shrink Packing (10) Cartooning (11) Cellophaning (12) Hanging Card Loading or Hand Pack or Eco Pack Loading (13) Final Packing. 9. emsp Prima facie, we are of the view that the appellants have a strong case on merits as the semi-finished goods cannot be valued under Section 4A. Moreover, the decision of the Apex Court in Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd. case cited supra would also be applicable. We have to taken into consideration the time-bar aspect also. In these circumstances, we order full waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount demanded (duty, penalty and interest included) till the disposal of the appeal. No recovery proceeding should be initiated until the appeal is decided. Registry to issue this order out of turn. Appeal to come up for hearing on19-1-2009. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 428 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Non-registration ... ... ... ... ..... or not taking Excise Registration and not submitting the periodical returns from time to time and for not maintaining the prescribed registers, it would be necessary to take a liberal view in their case and allow them the small-scale exemption, computation on the basis of cum-duty price and set-off against the CENVAT Credit on the invoices issued by public sector suppliers subject to being available for verification. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned Order and remand the matter to the Original Authority for verifying the invoices to be produced by the Appellants before him and for allowing the Credit in respect of the same while computing the new duty demand, if any. The Appellants shall not be liable for any penalty for evasion of duty if the net duty demand is nil. However, the Adjudicating Authority shall be free to determine the penalty for other violations of laws. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand in the above terms. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 427 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Interest - Cenvat/Modvat credit, wrong availment of ... ... ... ... ..... 2006 (206) E.L.T. 432 (Tri.-Bang.) - Union Air Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Kochi. (b) 2008 (222) E.L.T. 389 (Tri.-Mumbai) - Marpol Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Goa. (c) 2007 (218) E.L.T. 290 (Tri.-Mumbai) - Industrial Adhesive Enterprise v. CCE, Mumbai. (d) 2007 (217) E.L.T. 245 (Tri-Mumbai) - Ruby Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Raigad. 8. emsp In view of the fact that there are several judgments of the Tribunal taking the view that the demand for interest prior to 11-5-2001 under Section 11AB is not sustainable and we find ourselves unable to agree with this view, we feel that the issue has to be considered by Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to place this matter before the Hon rsquo ble President for constituting Larger Bench to decide whether interest on duty/cenvat credit demanded by applying proviso to Section HA or Section 11A read with Cenvat Credit Rules, or under Rule 57-I, is payable under Section 11AB prior to 11-5-2001 (Pronounced in Court on 10-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 425 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Appeal - Hearing - Non-appearance ... ... ... ... ..... o filed on that day. It appears that the statement recorded by the Department on 10-3-08 from Shri Sushanta Kumar Ghosh stating that he has neither filed any appeal nor signed Appeal Memo on behalf of M/s. G.N. Rubbertech Pvt. Ltd., remains uncontroverted. In view of several chances given to all the Appellants and their failure to appear, which has come to record, clearly reveal that the Appellants have abused the process of law finding the appeal remedy to be a process to follow a dilatory tactics without submitting themselves for legal remedy. Therefore, we consider it proper that allowing the matter to remain idle in record without sincerity of pursuasion, these Appeals deserve to be dismissed. We do so. 4.2 emsp In view of the above decision, we also dismiss all the Applications for condonation of delay filed in respect of the Excise Appeal Case Nos. 504-507/07. So also the Stay Petitions in all the five Appeals stand dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 424 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Pipes for delivery of water - Exemption under Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. - Order - Appealable order - Appeal by Department - Non-representation
-
2008 (10) TMI 422 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake - Error apparent on face of record ... ... ... ... ..... ion in the case of Bharat Bijlee Limited 2006 (198) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.) , where material on record was not considered that would fall within the expression rectification and not review. We do find that the synopsis submitted by the applicants, which inter alia include National Building Code published by the Bureau of Indian Standards having reference to pre-fabrication and systems buildings has not been commented upon by the Tribunal in its order In view of this, a mistake has arisen in not considering this material and therefore our order needs to be recalled for the purpose of considering this evidence now and to pass a fresh order after hearing both sides on the same. We accordingly recall our order which may be listed by the registry for rehearing. We make it clear that we are not passing any findings on the admissibility of this evidence which will be considered by the regular Bench during the course of hearing, which will take a view on the same. (Pronounced in the court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 419 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake - Error apparent ... ... ... ... ..... rder until there are any directions from the Hon rsquo ble High Court or Supreme Court. The second order dated 4-3-2008 is a nullity in the eyes of the law and therefore needs to be recalled and modified. rdquo 3. emsp After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main contention of the Revenue is that the Final Order dated 4-3-2008 is nullity in the eye of law. On perusal of the records, I find that the Final Order dated 20-7-2007 is an ex parte order. It is seen that the decision vide Final Order dated 20-7-2007 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing Final Order dated 4-3-2008, it cannot be a mistake apparent on face of record. In any event, the contention of the Revenue that the Final Order dated 4-3-2008 is a nullity in the eye of law, which cannot come within the purview of Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the ROM application is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 21-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 414 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waste and scrap - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... scrap were not required to pay duty. It is not the case of the department that the Appellants had availed credit on these capital goods and as such duty was required to be paid on the waste and generated in course of use of such capital goods if cleared from the factory of the manufacturer. Hence the order passed by the lower authority is not tenable and deserves to be set aside. In view of these facts I allow the party rsquo s appeal with all its consequential relief as per law and set aside the impugned order rdquo . Today also, Revenue has not been able to produce contrary evidence to the above findings. On the contrary, we notice that the grounds taken in appeal memoranda is accepting that scrap on which duty is sought to be levied, is not generated due to mechanical working in the factory premises of the respondent. 5. emsp Accordingly, we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order is a well reasoned one and does not require any interference. The appeal is rejected.
-
2008 (10) TMI 410 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Double payment of duty ... ... ... ... ..... he lower appellate authority to grant refund of one of the amounts of duty paid on the same goods is singularly based on the fact that the party had paid duty twice on the same goods. I do not think that such grant of refund can be resisted by the Revenue. Appeal No. E/214/2006 is, accordingly, dismissed. 2. emsp In the second appeal, however, there is no evidence of payment of duty on the same goods a second time. The goods were cleared on payment of duty and the same were returned by the buyer after reversal of credit. The facility of MODVAT credit was not available to 100 EOUs at that time, nor was there any provision of law which permitted refund of duty in lieu of MODVAT credit. Had the same goods been cleared again on payment of duty, refund could have been claimed as in the first case. In this view of the matter, I do not think that the lower appellate authority took the right decision. Appeal No. E/226/06 is, therefore, allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 409 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
SSI exemption - Eligibility therefor ... ... ... ... ..... onal registration as SSI on 22-6-93 only. It is claimed that they had applied for SSI registration earlier. This claim is not substantiated with any evidence. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned demand raised against the appellant invoking larger period has been validly made. The appellant had cleared goods manufactured by it during the material period contravening various provisions of the Central Excise Rules and thereby became liable for penalty under Rule 173Q of the CER. As the appellants did not possess SSI certificate, the impugned clearances were not eligible for the benefit under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-86 and No. 1/93 dated 28-2-93. Therefore, we find that the impugned demand had been correctly made. The penalties imposed are reasonable and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by M/s. Esteem Home Products Pvt. Ltd. is dismissed as devoid of merit. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court on 20-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 408 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Machinery - Paper making machinery - Classification of ... ... ... ... ..... inst a single purchase order for paper making machinery or that it was practically possible for the respondents to manufacture the whole machinery as such or in parts and keep the same ready for clearance from factory. Where large-sized machines are manufactured against purchase orders, it is the acknowledged practice of the trade that such machines are manufactured and cleared piecemeal under cover of a single duty-paying document. This is what was done by the respondents. This kind of a situation is probably covered by circulars of the Board, but neither side is possessed of any. In a lighter vein, we observe that the relief prayed for by the Assistant Commissioner (Appeals) can be partly allowed by restoring the Order-in-Original. 3. emsp The order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is an eminendy speaking order covering the whole gamut of the issue and the same can only be sustained. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 407 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Quantum of credit ... ... ... ... ..... d valorem, rates in per cent., of basic customs duty and additional duty of customs leviable on the inputs or capital goods respectively and X denotes the assessable value. The impugned order upheld the determination of availability of input credit correctly in terms of the above sub-rule. The appeal deserved to be dismissed. 5. emsp I have considered the facts of the case. The entitlement to input credit when a manufacturer receives inputs manufactured by an EOU is governed by sub-rule (7) of Rule 3 of CCR, 2004. The said sub-rule prescribes a formula to determine the admissible credit which is 50 of the basic customs duty and CVD payable on the inputs had they been imported. The lower authorities have determined the entitlement of the appellants to the credit relatable to the consignments received by it during the material period in accordance with statutory provisions correctly. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 405 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... efully. The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding that there is no provision to demand duty on removal of used Cenvated capital goods. He has also referred to the Board rsquo s Circular dated the 1st July 2002. We want to make it clear that the above Circular is applicable only to capital goods removed as such and not to the used cenvated capital goods. In other words, the appellant is not required to pay duty when the used machinery is sold. Hence, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. rdquo 3. emsp As the capital goods had been cleared after use for about 8 years by the assessee, the impugned goods are not capital goods ldquo as such rdquo . As the impugned order has been passed relying on the ratio of a decision of the Tribunal which has not been unsettled by an order of a superior court, the appeal filed by the Revenue has to be held as devoid of merit. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
....
|
