|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 189 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 440 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption- Cenvat Credit- the Appellant had availed of the exemption under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. (S. Nos. 133 and 134), (the appellant stopped claiming the exemption under this notification w.e.f 10-6-2000), the Department was of the view that they are not eligible for the same, a SCN was issued for denying the exemption and demand of allegedly short paid duty amounting to Rs. 5,72,527/- and also for imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(1). The Joint Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and also imposed penalty of Rs. 25000/- under Rule 173Q(1) on the ground that the exemption had been wrongly availed as duty credit under Rule 57Q had been availed in respect of dyeing machinery. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand, but set aside the penalty. It is against this order of CCE (Appeals) that the present appeal has been filed. Held that- , the appellant was not eligible for concessional rate of duty in respect of dyed yarn under Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. (Sl. Nos. 133 and 134) and do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.
-
2009 (11) TMI 418 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Classification- The issue involved in this case pertains to classification of Vaccine with Diluents. The relevant show-cause notices proposed to classify the product under Heading 38.23 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The adjudicating authority classified it under Heading 23.02. The Department found that the adjudicating authority had traveled beyond the scope of the show-cause notices and hence the orders of that authority were reviewed. Held that- in the light of the decision of Ventri Biologicals v. CCE, Pune, assessee appeal allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 417 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Refund- Price variation clause- The appellants filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby refund claim of the appellants was rejected. The appellants filed refund claim, this refund claim was filed in pursuance to the Price Variation Clause in the contract for supply of explosives. The contention is that the goods were cleared and thereafter, on performance of the explosives, the price is reduced and the appellants received the reduced price, hence, the appellants are entitled for refund of Excise duty paid at the time of clearance of goods. Held that- no price variation clause in the agreement. Appellants request for provisional assessment was declined which was not challenged. Refund rejected.
-
2009 (11) TMI 404 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Tiles- Notification No. 6/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 14-5-2003- whether the assessees are entitled for refund of the amount which is claimed as the amount availed as credit on the inputs utilised in manufacture of the goods which were exported by the appellants availing benefit under Notification No. 6/02-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 as amended by Notification No. 45/2003-C.E., dated 14-5-2003. Held that- there is no dispute about the credit availed by the appellant. benefit of exemption under notification not available.
-
2009 (11) TMI 391 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit- Show cause notices were issued alleging that the said scrap sold by them known in common trade parlance as waste and scrap of iron and steel products were clearly different in terms of its characteristics and usages and therefore classifiable under Chapter sub-heading No. 7205.90. The disputed goods have arisen out of capital goods on which Cenvat credit was not taken by them. Therefore, the question of treating them as waste and scrap arisen during the course of manufacture does not arise. Held that- impugned items not to be treated as generated during course of manufacture. Note 8(a) of Section XV of central Excise Tariff not relevant to such operation. Impugned item not liable to duty.
-
2009 (11) TMI 389 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption- The authorities have denied the benefit of small scale exemption to the assessees herein during the period 1996-97 upto 1999-2000 on “online UPS” and “invertors” manufactured by them on the ground that the goods bore the brand name “CANSOFT” which belonged to M/s. Cansoft Systems Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as CSP). The duty demand of Rs. 6,31,212/- has been confirmed as a result of such denial and a penalty of equal amount has been imposed. Held that- law during the period in dispute was that use of brand name of manufacturer of goods different from those manufactured by brand name owner would not lead disentitlement to exemption. Subsequently it was clarified that use of brand name of another person on any goods would lead to disentitlement to exemption. Assessee cannot be said to have intention to evade duty by using brand name of another person, and extended period not invocable.
-
2009 (11) TMI 387 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund- the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the crediting of the amount of refund claimed by the assessees to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground that they had not established non-passing of the incidence of duty to their customers/buyers. Held that- unjust enrichment not arise where lower authority collected from buyer, squarely attracted. Invoice issued from depot before actual date of clearance from factory not sufficient to hold unjust enrichment. Findings absent that factory gate invoices of lower value than value shown in invoices for sale from depot. Refund allowed. Order crediting amount to consumer welfare found set aside.
-
2009 (11) TMI 385 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Delay in refund- Interest- interest for delay in its refund. Tribunal allowing appeal of assessee in August, 2005 whereas pre-deposit amount refunded in December, 2005. Held that- assessee entitled to interest from expiry of three months from Tribunal order, as well as interest on interest also.
-
2009 (11) TMI 384 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Defects in appeal- They are curable and not fatal warranting dismissal of appeal. department filed statement of facts and grounds of appeal duly signed by authorized officer, dismissal order set aside and appeal restored.
-
2009 (11) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation- According to the Revenue, they ought to have paid duty on the basis of the combined MRP of Rs. 49/-. One of these appeals is against the differential demand of duty raised by the lower appellate authority on this basis. For the period January to March, 2000, a similar demand was raised on the assessee in respect of combi-packs of toothpaste and toothbrush, each with combined MRP of Rs. 31.50, which was the promotional price offered to the ultimate consumers. The individual MRPs of the toothpaste and the toothbrush in a combi-pack were Rs. 28.50 and Rs. 18/-. Alongside the total MRP of Rs. 46.50, the concessional MRP of the combined pack was shown as Rs. 31.50. Held that- the assessee paid duty on this basis in terms of Section 4A of the Act. They are not liable to pay any additional amount of duty on the goods in question. In the result, the demand of differential duty and penalty are set aside and these appeals are allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 380 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund- Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter Heading No. 8703.00 of the CETA, 1985. The appellants have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non-fulfilment of the condition of the Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002. Held that-rejection of the refund claim (except the amounts have already been reversed being time barred) is not justifiable and hold that the appellant is entitled to get the refund claim (except the refund of Rs. 59,224/-, which is time barred). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief.
-
2009 (11) TMI 377 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund- Limitation- The relevant date in the present case would be as defined in Section 11B(5)(d) as this is a case of reduction of duty by the Government and if this date is accepted to be the relevant date, then the claim is not barred, as the duty was reduced only from 20% to 18% only on 1-3-1997. Held that- the adjudicating authority who shall put the appellants notice on the applicability of the provisions of Rule 9A and hear the appellants both on the above issue as well on their plea that the relevant date in this case is one defined in Section 11B(5)(d) of the Central Excise Act. Fresh orders shall be passed in accordance with law after extending a reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (11) TMI 376 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty- Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93- The adjudicating authority namely Joint Commissioner, Kanpur by the orders dated 8-9-2000 had confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,20,958/- and had imposed penalty of equal amount while refusing benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93. Held that- Different firms will be treated as different manufacturers for the purpose of exemption limit. But it a firm consisting of certain partners say A, B & C, has got more than one factory, all these factories should of course be combined. Limited companies whether public or private are separate entities distinct from the shareholders composing it. Hence each limited company is a manufacturer by itself and will be entitled to a separate exemption limit. If there are two firms with only some of the partners in common, each firm is entitled to separate exemption limit and hence the question of distributing the exemption may not arise. If one firm or individual owns several factories he or it gets exemption only in respect of one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the appeal in accordance with provisions of law taking into consideration
-
2009 (11) TMI 375 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Penalty- The appellants have challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants submitted that the impugned order had been passed without affording adequate opportunity to them to present their case. The allegations against the appellants were found based on several documents which had not been furnished to the appellants despite their persistent requests. Held that- the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice in that the Commissioner had not provided all the relied upon documents sought for by the appellants and had not allowed cross-examination of various witnesses sought by the appellants. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for a fresh decision by the adjudicating authority after complying with principles of natural justice. Appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (11) TMI 371 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Classification- The question is whether certain ink manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period of dispute is classifiable under Sub-Heading 3215.10 as writing ink as claimed by the assessee or under SH 3215.90 (other) as claimed by the Revenue for the period from 1999 to March, 2004. The assessee had filed a classification declaration for the year 1999-2000, wherein they had described their product as writing ink and classified the same under SH 3215.10 attracting ‘nil’ rate of duty. In that declaration, they specified the inputs as (i) dyes, (ii) solvent, and (iii) water. Commissioner (Appeals) granted two benefits to the assessee. Firstly, the assessee was allowed to treat the invoiced price of the goods as ‘cum-duty price’. Secondly, they were allowed to claim ‘input duty credit’. The assessee deposited duty with interest within thirty days from the date of communication of the orders of adjudication. It is submitted that they also paid penalty to the extent of 25% of the duty amount within such period. These facts are not in dispute. Therefore, our decision on the penalty-related issue will be subject to the relevant provisions of Section 11AC.
-
2009 (11) TMI 370 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Ductile Iron Pipes- Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002-The appellants herein are manufacturers of Ductile Iron Pipes (DIP) and are clearing major quantity of this goods on payment of appropriate duty of excise in the normal course. The appellant availing the exemption under Notification on the supply of DIPs to the water supply project and water treatment plant. Held that- the pipes which are used for delivery of water from treatment plant to various storage facilities are eligible for the benefit of Notifications, is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we find that the second issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee/appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 367 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Additional ground- The appellants are engaged in manufacture of air texturised yarn. The ground that the value cleared by them through 4 consignment agents was not determined as per the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 7 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 (‘Valuation Rules’ for short). Penalty of equal amount has been imposed on the company and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on Shri Shrikant Mundra, Director of the Company and Rs. 1 lakh on Shri P.G. Sharma, authorized signatory of the company, have also been imposed. Held that- whatever was the duty they were paying at the factory gate in respect of the goods sold by the consignment agent, when the price of the factory gate was lower than the price charged by the consignment agent was totally without any intention to evade duty. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority who shall decide the issues relating to the determination of assessable value and calculation of duty in terms of our observation in this order and also in the light of judicial pronouncements.
-
2009 (11) TMI 362 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Masala Pudies- Classification- The appellant is manufacturers of various masala pudis-amla pudi, dudhi pudi, brahmi pudi, mehndi pudi etc. which contains amla powder, mehndi leaves powder as main ingredients as well as different other ingredients also and packed and sold in 100 grams packing to household buyers to prepare hair oil. The appellartt classified his products as masala pudies under Chapter/Heading No. 1401.00 and cleared goods valued at Rs. 6,89,205/- at Nil rate of duty from June, 98 to Nov. 98. The adjudicating authority classified the same under Chap ter/Heading No. 3305.99 attracting central excise duty @ 30% Adv., amounting to Rs. 2,06,762/-. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued on 3-12-98 which was adjudicated and was confirmed. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside. Held that- Henna powder and shikakai powder are directly applied to hair after mixing with water, hence not comparable to present items. Thus not classifiable under sub-heading 3305.90 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
-
2009 (11) TMI 323 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit- Supplementary invoice- the appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the confirmation of demand and interest and reducing penalty to Rs. 10,000/-. The demand arises as a result of holding that the assessees are not entitled to take Cenvat credit paid under supplementary invoice issued by a manufacturer of inputs for the reason that the additional amount became recoverable by reason of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. - held that- the assessee cannot be held to be guilty of clandestine clearance of ‘dough’ cannot be accepted as it is not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether the assessees removed ‘dough’ clandestinely from one unit of theirs to another, which fact has been admitted by them before the Settlement Commission. In view of the above, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2009 (11) TMI 319 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation- whether the assessable value of goods in question shall include insurance charges and handling charges incurred in different places at different point of time. Held that- There is no finding as to clearance of goods at different places to make the same marketable at those places. Nor also evidence existence in this regard on record. Therefore, in absence of any cogent reasons or evidence to disturb the first appellate order, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
....
|
