|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 189 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 698 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... s under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. I have heard both sides. In the case of Sterlite Industries (I) Ltd. v. CCE, Pune 2005 (183) E.L.T. 353 , the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held that finished goods cleared by a job worker without payment of duty under Notification No. 214/86-C.E. cannot be considered to be exempted goods and, therefore, I hold that the assessees are not required to reverse Cenvat credit taken on furnace oil used in the manufacture of Rough Steel Forgings cleared without payment of duty. CBEC rsquo s circular dated 29-8-2000 clarifies that Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of duty on waste and scrap as waste and scrap are final products within the definition of Rule 57AA(c) and, therefore, I hold that the assessees are not required to reverse credit for payment of duty on waste and scrap. 3. In the result, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 20-11-2009)
-
2009 (11) TMI 697 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Natural justice - clandestine removal - Held that: - unless the documents which are relied upon and form basis for calculation of duty are provided to the appellant, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice have been observed - in the earlier rounds of litigation, there was no specific direction by the Tribunal that relied upon documents should be provided before adjudication. In view of the above discussion, we allow the stay petition unconditionally, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority, to decide the matter afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (11) TMI 696 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... the period mentioned above, does not render an assessee liable to reversal of credit availed on the same, in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Commissioner of C.Ex. and Cus., Daman, Vapi v. Guala Closures (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (237) E.L.T. 493 and in the light of Board rsquo s supplementary instructions. 3. The assessees have already reversed the credit. The contest is confined to the direction for payment of interest. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s decision cited supra, I set aside the direction for payment of interest and allow the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 695 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... therefore, penalty was not warranted against them. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the adjudication order entirely hence this appeal. 2. I have heard both sides. The finding that the assessees were guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty is based not only on the fact that the assessees had raised necessary invoices showing details such as value, amount of duty payable on the clearances of defective inputs etc., which showed that they clearly aware of the fact that they were required to discharge duty liability on such clearances and yet did not pay duty while clearing the defective inputs, but also upon the admission of Shri M.K. Yousuf, I Chairman and Managing Director of the assessees company. The charge of suppression stand clearly established against the assessees. They have, therefore, been rightly held to be liable to penalty. I accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 694 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Pre-deposit - Held that: - The Board’s circular cited by counsel also appears to favor grant of exemption under the above notification to indirect supplies of petroleum products to the Indian Navy subject to proof of co-relation between the original supply and the goods received on board the Naval vessels - It is true that the exemption notification should be strictly construed. It was upon such strict interpretation of the notification - we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery subject to the condition that the appellants produce bonds covering the entire duty liability.
-
2009 (11) TMI 682 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... ered by the Adjudicating Authority in proper perspective. 5. Be that as it may, since the appellant rsquo s Counsel today undertakes to produce all the relevant records, i.e. invoices, bills from depot etc., we deem it fit to remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority once again to reconsider the evidences that may be produced by the appellants before him, along with Chartered Accountant rsquo s certificate as regards the freight charges and come to a proper conclusion after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant to appear before him and plead the matter. Since, the matter is being remanded for the second time, it would be appropriate that the Adjudicating Authority disposes this matter within a period of four months from the receipt of this order. 6. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original Adjudicating Authority. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2009 (11) TMI 681 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that: - the receipt of payment of value of the goods or the duty component is not a determining factor for deciding whether the duty burden has been passed on or not - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 680 - SC ORDER
CENVAT Credit Cenvat Credit (MODVAT) on Carbon copy of Challan / Invoice - Supreme Court dismissed appeal where High Court held that Moreover, laying down a blanket principle permitting Modvat credit on carbon copy may result into setting up of false claims. On such a principle the possibility of availing Modvat credit by many persons against one transaction would not be ruled out which will be highly damaging to the revenue.
-
2009 (11) TMI 676 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Application for rectification of the earlier order – period of limitation of 6 months - alleged that Tribunal had erroneously assumed that the period of six months operates even for examining the rectification application, that it is within the inherent powers of the Tribunal to entertain an application for rectification – Held that:- In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. (2009 (3) TMI 31 - SUPREME COURT ) wherein the Supreme Court had an occasion to make a distinction about the possibilities for entertaining applications/appeals beyond the normal period of limitation only when it is a limitation supported under the Limitation Act for which even Section 5 may also come into play but where the particular statutory enactment itself prescribes a precise period of limitation, it is not open to the Tribunal or court to go beyond that period as submitted and in the present case - against revenue.
-
2009 (11) TMI 675 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Demand of duty with interest and penalty - manufacture of coconut oil packed and sold in containers up to 200 ml – Held that:- Reading of Ext. P7(b) order indicates that coconut oil packed and sold in packages of capacity up to 500 ml is not liable to be charged with excise duty – in Raymon Glues & Chemicals (1999 (3) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD ) it was held that circulars and departmental clarifications issued by the department cannot operate when the field is occupied by a decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal - respondents cannot take the stand that they are entitled to depart from the stand taken by the Tribunal in Ext. P7(b) order - petitioner cannot be called upon to pay excise duty on the goods manufactured by them falling within the ambit of Ex. P7(b) order
-
2009 (11) TMI 672 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Rebate - goods were cleared for export – alleged that no mention of any notification under which the goods were cleared by the respondent – Held that:- Respondent was clearing all their goods for home consumption under Notification No. 30/2004. As per Section 5A(1) the respondent was not required to pay duty after 15-5-2005 as they were working under Notification No. 30/2004 - respondent were not supposed to pay duty, hence no rebate was admissible to them - respondent has paid duty which has become a deposit with the Govt. which has to be paid back to the respondent in the manner they have paid at the time of clearance of goods - revision application succeeds
-
2009 (11) TMI 671 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Export under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. - rebate claims - part rebate claims representing the amount of duty paid on freight and insurance elements were rejected – Held that:- Rebate is not admissible of the amount equal to duty paid erroneously on the post factory removal expenses of freight and insurance which do not form part of transaction value - duty which was not required to be paid can only be treated as deposit and is to be refunded back in the manner it was paid either from cenvat credit or cash
-
2009 (11) TMI 652 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat/Modvat - Change in name of Company - denial on the ground that prior permission not taken - Held that: - when the respondent applied for amendment for change in the registration for the change of name, the same was granted without any objection. It means that the Department satisfied with accountal of inputs in RG-23A Part-I and credit involved therein in RG-23A Part-II. In this case, there was no change in the pattern of usage of inputs/capital goods and production of the finished goods. Therefore, the question of taking prior permission does not arise in this case - credit dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (11) TMI 650 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision application – rebate claim – Held that:- applicant has re-exported the goods under claim of drawback and not under rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the applicant has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in Notification 40/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-01, and no foreign exchange was received, as this is a case of re-export of the goods under claim of drawback. As rebate is an export-oriented scheme to boost the export to earn foreign exchange, Govt. observes, the rebate of CVD is not admissible to the applicant, Revision application is rejected
-
2009 (11) TMI 648 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing Cenvat Credit to the respondent for capital goods used in the power plant when major portion of the electricity generated was sold to the MPEB – Held that:- major portion of the generated electricity from the power plant was sold to MPEB through its grid, however, it cannot be said that capital goods were exclusively used in manufacture of exempted goods (electricity) sold to MPEB as a portion of electricity generated in the power plant is also utilized in manufacture of final products “sponge iron” of the respondent factory, which is leviable to the excise duty and is not exempted goods, Tribunal was justified to hold that respondent was entitled for modvat credit against the capital goods used in the captive power plant of the respondent and Rule 6(4) of the Rules was no bar for denying Cenvat Credit, appeal dismissed
-
2009 (11) TMI 641 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Duty liability in relation to the goods still lying in the stock - held that:- the factory is in legal existence though actual process of manufacture is not being conducted in the factory at present. - prima facie, it would not be permissible for the authority to insist for payment of duty in relation to such products at this stage. Retrospective amendment - Differential duty in relation to the product - clearance of inputs and capital goods - the inputs were procured prior to 1997, but they were disposed of after 1st April, 2000 and at the relevant time the provisions of Rule 57-AB were in force and not Rule 57F. - held that:- Considering the law, as revealed from Section 131 of the Finance Act which introduced the amendment protecting the rights accrued and the liabilities incurred under the statutory ruling prevailing at the time of insertion of the amendment, obviously would disclose that, the legal provisions prevailing on the date of removal of the goods will have to be understood with reference to the dates on which the goods had been cleared and with reference to the provisions which were in force on such dates. Having so understood, the calculation made in that regard by the Commissioner in the impugned order, prima facie, does not appear to suffer from any infirmity. In that regard, no, prima facie, case has been made out for grant of stay of demand in that respect. - Pre-deposit ordered.
-
2009 (11) TMI 640 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Demand on the ground that the appellant did not contest the duty confirmation - Before the Commissioner (Appeals) also no serious objection was raised by the Appellant and even the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed in his order that the clandestine removal was admitted by the Appellant in the statement. Based on these observations made by the Commissioner (Appeals), the CESTAT while disposing of the rectification application has observed that it is not open for the Appellant to contend before the CESTAT that the duty demand is wrongly levied - Held that:- no substantial questions of law arises from the order of the CESTAT and hence this Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 635 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bank Guarantee - respondents has filed undertaking that they will deposit the amount of Rs. 17.61 lakh with the same bank from which bank guarantee was issued and encashed by the department - In the event of such deposit, the petitioner undertakes to furnish fresh bank guarantee - officer encashing the bank guarantee will be personally held liable for the preach of the order and circular, Writ petition is disposed of in terms of this order with no order as to costs
-
2009 (11) TMI 631 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver of Pre-deposit - Tribunal imposed a condition of pre-deposit of Rs. 55,000/- within four weeks and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance tax and interest shall stand waived and recovery shall stand stayed - petitioner informed that the time granted by the Tribunal for pre-deposit is expired. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is given four more weeks to comply with the interim order passed by the Tribunal, failing which the interim order passed by the Tribunal will stand restored.
-
2009 (11) TMI 626 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - goods imported, duty credit claimed by the petitioner was declined and the petitioner got the goods released on furnishing bank guarantee - During the pendency of this writ petition, the Director General of Foreign Trade has issued Exts. P17 and P18 clarifying the position, as a result of which, the petitioner is entitled to get duty credit in respect of the goods imported under Exts. - But no notification has been issued in this regard - Held that:- having regard to the fact that the Government of India have issued Exts. P17 and P18,it is not reasonable to require the petitioner to wait until any notification is issued by the Customs Department to get the benefit. no substance in this objection. Writ petition is disposed of.
....
|
