|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 184 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 448 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Tanker- Notification No. 6/2002-C.E.- The assessee classified the tankers under Heading No. 87.07 under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and claimed duty exemption thereon under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 239). The assessee stated that they are manufacturing road tankers as per the specifications given by the customers i.e., Kovvur unit and that normally those road tankers are cleared “as such” to their Kovvur unit in their own/other lorries and only in few cases as per the instructions of their customers, tankers are cleared by mounting/fitting to the lorry (motor vehicle) chassis sent by their customers. The adjudicating authority has dropped proceedings by relying upon the Order-in-Appeal No. 60/2003 (G) C.E. dated 11-11-2003, wherein it was held that “road tankers manufactured and cleared by the assesses are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the order of adjudicating authority. Held that- the issue involved in this appeal has already attained finality in favour of the respondent, we do not find merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and we reject the same.
-
2009 (9) TMI 442 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit- The appellant, are the manufacturer of the Motor Cycles, rickshaws and spares thereof. They are also availing the facility of Cenvat credit of the duty paid on the specified inputs received in their factory premises in terms of the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellants are procuring these specified inputs from various manufacturers against contractual agreements namely purchase orders for the agreed prices/values. Held that- If there is any differential duty then it is the burden on the department to re-assess the duty payable which exercise has not been done by the Jurisdictional range of suppliers end. In these circumstances the appellants have rightly claimed the Cenvat credit on the actual duty paid. There is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules that the appellants are not entitled to take the Cenvat credit of such duty paid. We have gone through the reliance placed by the learned Advocate and ratio of those reliance are that the duty has to be determined by the jurisdictional officer of the supplier unit and if it is not done, it cannot be disputed by the officer of the recipient unit. With these observations, we do not find any merit in the impugned order and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 441 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Samples- dutiability- - The basic issue involved in this appeal of the Revenue is as to whether the sample of drugs drawn in the course of manufacture, before the RG I stage for quality control purposes, are liable for central excise duty. The Deptt. holding that such samples drawn during the periods from 2001-02 to 2002-03 are liable for Central Excise duty. However the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) vide the impugned order-in-appeal dated 26-6-07 set aside the Asstt. Commissioner’s Order. The Revenue is in appeal against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals). In the light of the various decisions held that- batch analysis samples used in testing are not liable to excise duty.
-
2009 (9) TMI 432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Car-Exemption- the appellant received a vehicle Wagon R-AX on payment of concessional rate of duty of 16% as against the normal rate of 40% in terms of Notification No. 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. car capable of use by physically handicapped person. Buyer producing certificate from Director in Ministry of Heavy Industries that car capable of being used by him. Certificate subsequently withdrawn by a letter issued by section officer of the ministry. Held that- withdrawal certificate was issued by incompetent authority and it was importer as it neither indicated that decision was taken by higher/competent authority nor grounds based on which disability earlier considered adequate warranted cancellation of earlier certificate. Condition of Notification complied with.
-
2009 (9) TMI 431 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit- The Aluminium Sheets which are used as part of lining of the boiler and have been used for replacing the worn out parts of boiler lining are eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods. The Asstt. Commissioner vide order-in-original disallowed the Cenvat credit on this item and confirmed Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 10837/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant’s appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals). In the light of the decision of L.H. Sugar Factories’s case reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 85 wherein it was held that MS Plates used for maintenance of machinery and of the capital goods are entitled for Cenvat Credit. In view of this, I hold that the impugned order denying the Cenvat credit in respect of aluminium sheet as capital goods is not correct and hence the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
-
2009 (9) TMI 409 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Authority not authorized for signing- The petitioner has approached this Court against the order, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein has been dismissed on the ground that the authority who signed the appeal memo was not authorised. Signing of appeal memo by a person who is not authorised, at the highest, would amount to an irregularity and not illegality. Held that- . It will always be open to the petitioner, if aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, to assail the order before this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.With the above observation, the petition is disposed of.
-
2009 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund- unjust enrichment- Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976-The petitioner in the instant case had approached this court to direct the respondents to refund, reimburse and pay to the petitioner the amount of extra duty collected in terms of CEGAT order. CEGAT by that order had taken the view that the goods are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. Held that- In the instant case, admittedly, though CEGAT had held in favour of the petitioners, there was no order passed by the respondents on the application for refund. Thus, the respondents are directed to dispose of the pending application for refund according to law. The entire exercise to be completed not later than three months from today. Rule made absolute accordingly.
-
2009 (9) TMI 403 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Manufacture- Notification No. 58/03- A show cause notice was issued by the Revenue to the appellant requiring to show cause as to why exemption should not be denied to them since the conditions in the Notification No. 58/03-C.E, have not been fulfilled. Besides demand of duty with interest, penalty was also proposed under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. The Commissioner in the impugned order also negated the claim of the appellant that there was no manufacture of the goods in the factory and the goods manufactured by them were not at all excisable and held that if the exemption under Notification No. 58/03 was not available, they were liable to pay the Excise duty on the goods. Held that- we find that the appellant had a bona fide belief that they were eligible for exemption and therefore cleared the goods under Notification No. 58/03. Subsequently, when the show cause notice was issued, they have tried to claim that the goods were not excisable. Basically, the dispute involves interpretation of law and applicability of exemption notification and therefore we find that there is no justification for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of CEA, 1944. We also find that the claim of the appellant for Cenvat credit should have been considered by the Commissioner and therefore, we direct that the appellants may be given the benefit of Cenvat credit admissible subject to production of necessary documents. We also allow the claim for treatment of price charged by the appellant as cum-duty-price. Appeal is partially allowed in above terms.
-
2009 (9) TMI 402 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Export Oriented unit- The appellants are 100% EOU, registered manufacturer under the provisions of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and have bonded warehousing licence under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 to manufacture under bond a product being Instant Tea Powder falling under Chapter Heading 2101.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The Revenue Department alleged that appellants had exported the said product without payment of cess payable in terms of Section 3(n) of the Tea Act, 1953. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty as well as imposed penalty, as described in the table hereinabove. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals as far as they relate to the merits of the case and also confirmed the penalties Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. Held that- . It is well settled that once the Department issues the show cause notice for a particular period, the Department normally thereafter on the same set of facts and grounds cannot issue second show cause notice by invoking the extended period of limitation relating to earlier period thereto. The appellants are justified in contending that the respondents were not entitled to initiate proceedings on the basis of show cause notice dated 2nd March, 2001.
As regards the issue relating to penalty, held that- as rightly pointed out by the appellants, the dispute related to the interpretation of statutory provisions and it did not disclose intension to evade the payment of duty and, therefore, there was no justification for imposition of penalty in the matter. Hence, the penalty imposed under the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Thus, duty demanded thereunder and also interest, are confirmed. All the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2009 (9) TMI 401 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
SSI Exemption- brand name- Notification No. 1/93- that, M/s. Karan Enterprises is a Proprietorship concern of Mrs. Rajini Chopra w/o Shri Vinod Chopra. Shri Vinod Chopra is one of the Partners of another firm, M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners. Both the firms were apparently engaged in the manufacture of Bolts and Screw Manufacturing Machines. On the date of visit by the Officers on 17-12-1996 to the premises of M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners, they found certain records relating to M/s. Karan Enterprises. Shri Vinod Chopra admitted that he was looking after the work of M/s. Karan Enterprises and also admitted that the goods were being cleared with the brand name ‘Metal Fold’. Show cause notice was issued alleging that the brand name ‘Metal Fold’ belongs to M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners and that M/s. Karan Enterprises have cleared the machinery with the brand name belonging to third party and, therefore, not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.3,50,369/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Held that- It is the claim of M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners that the brand name used by them was ‘Metal Fold Machinery’ in red colour and the claim of M/s. Karan Enterprises is that they used the brand name ‘Metal Fold’ in blue colour. Under these circumstances, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal of M/s. Karan Enterprises cannot be found fault with. In view of the above, the appeal by the Department is rejected.
-
2009 (9) TMI 400 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit- A show cause notice was issued to the respondents and the original authority held that the credit taken on the basis of invoices received from M/s. Ambica Steel Industries through their own premises as registered dealer in Mandi Gobindgarh was irregular and accordingly confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty as mentioned above. On appeal filed by the party, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal. Held that- As they have played dual roles, first as registered dealer and then as a recipient-manufacturer, they were required to prove the receipt of duty paid materials in their dealer’s premises and the premises of the manufacturing unit. They have not adduced any evidence regarding the actual receipt of the material by their Mandi Gobindgarh office or for transport of the same to Parwanoo factory and on the duty paid nature of the scrap received by them. Under the circumstances, the order of the original authority in confirming the demand along with interest and imposition of penalty should not have been interfered with by the Commissioner (Appeals). In view of the above, we set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal of the department by restoring the order of the original authority.
-
2009 (9) TMI 392 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refund- Stay/dispensation of pre deposit- The petitioner by the present petition impugns the order dated 24th June 2009 [2009 (247) E.L.T. 622 (Tri. - Mumbai)] whereby the application of the petitioner herein for waiver of pre-deposit has been rejected and the petitioner was called upon to pre-deposit a sum of Rs.66,62,032/- along with the interest as applicable. Held that-. In the instant case, considering the provisions earlier referred to, it would be clear that the doctrine of unjust enrichment would not be applicable. Prima facie, it is a case of refund of duty. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioner having made out a strong prima facie case, calling upon the petitioner to deposit would occasion undue hardship. The application for waiver of pre-deposit ought to have been considered on that test. Thus, the impugned order to the extent it directs the petitioner to deposit the duty along with interest in the sum of Rs. 66,62,032/- is set aside.
-
2009 (9) TMI 391 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay- appellants have preferred appeals against the judgment passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Indore, who dismissed the appeals filed by the present appellants as barred by limitation. In the light of the various decisions it is held that- it should be presumed that the appeals were preferred before the Tribunal on 5-12-2002, i.e., on 90th day, which was the last day of the limitation. The Tribunal has committed the jurisdictional error in disposing the appeals as barred by limitation. Hence, allow these appeals setting aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority to consider the case.
-
2009 (9) TMI 384 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Classification- The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of name plates, labels, emblems and logos made up of plastic material. The appellants claimed classification under Chapter sub-headings 87.08 and 87.14 of the Tariff as accessories for exclusive use in motor vehicles and scooters and mopeds respectively. The issue involved in the matter in hand is, whether the name plates, labels, emblems and logos made from plastic for the use on the motor vehicles, motor cycles, scooters and mopeds etc. are classifiable under Chapter sub-headings 87.08 and 87.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as parts or accessories of the motor vehicles or motor cycles, as claimed by the appellants or under Chapter sub-heading 3926.90 as other articles of the plastics, as claimed by the Department. In the light of the various decisions concluded by the Apex Court whereby the products in question manufactured by the appellants has been held as parts and accessories and, therefore, classifiable under Chapter sub-headings 87.08 and 87.14, held that- The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained and both the orders passed by the lower authorities are liable to be set aside and the classification is to be confirmed in relation to the product in question as claimed by the appellants. Ordered accordingly. In view of acceptance of the case regarding classification of the product in question as claimed by the appellants, the question of granting exemption under Notification No. 5/98-C.E. in accordance with the decision of the Tribunal in the case of N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. (supra), does not arise. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms with consequential relief and stands disposed of.
-
2009 (9) TMI 383 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation- the appellants’ factories are located in Pondicherry, Mumbai and Bhuvaneshwar jurisdiction wherein they manufacture dutiable plastic bottles for packing of ‘Ujala’, which is exempted. The department has adopted the value in respect of the bottles made in Mumbai for the Pondicherry unit’s production under Rule 6(d)(i) of the Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 disregarding the claim for valuation under Rule 6(b)(ii). The department has also rejected the deduction prayed for by the appellants in respect of cap and stopper as the value of bottles made in Mumbai include the cost of cap and stopper whereas the bottles made in Pondicherry and Bhuvaneshwar are made without cap and stopper according to the ld. Counsel. Held that- when the value of bottles produced in Bhuvaneshwar is available, the same is required to be adopted under Rule 6(b)(i) and the assessments are required to be done accordingly. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for determining the value of the bottles produced in Pondicherry on the basis of the value of the comparable bottles produced by the appellants in Bhuvaneshwar. The appeal is thus partly allowed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 373 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Classification- The dispute in this case relates to issue of Section 37B order dated 24-9-1992 classifying the impugned goods under heading 3923.90 and from when the revised classification would be effective. In the light of the decision of CCE, Bhubaneswar-I v. Ceeta Industries Ltd. - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 436 (Tri.-Kol.), held that- wherein it was held that the new classification would be effective from the date of issue of trade notice by the jurisdictional Commissioner, held that- the respondents are liable to pay duty under the revised tariff heading 3923.90 with effect from 12-10-92. The impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority is modified to that extent and the department’s appeal is partly allowed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 367 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Rebate-. The petitioners are the Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in manufacture of various articles falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioners used to get benefit of rebate on exports made by them. That benefit was initially granted by Circular dated 8-12-2006. Subsequently, Notification dated 17-9-2008 indicated that benefit of rebate would not be available after 8-12-2006 and later on by Finance Act, 2008, the benefit of rebate was made available only upto 7-12-2006. The petitioners’ claim for rebate was denied by the Order-in-Original. Held that- once rebate granted upon condition of withdrawal of revision. Order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) virtually review. Petitioner unable to pursue remedy as restoration/revival of revision application turned down by revesional authority stating that earlier application since withdrawn, no further order required. Revision applications restored. Order of Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside.
-
2009 (9) TMI 362 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat Credit- The appellants, M/s. United Chain Industries and M/s. Kay Iron Works (herein after referred to as manufacturers) are registered as manufacturers of excisable goods. There are demands of duty along with interest besides penalties imposed on both of them. Dealer passing credit without supplying goods. Issuing Cenvatable invoices without supplying goods is a fraud committed on revenue. Statutory obligation “to account for the goods” applicable when input purchased and credit taken. “To account for the goods” not merely mean making entries in registers, took credit, prepared invoice for goods already diverted and received payment for diverted goods. Registration by dealer solely for passing on credit and intent to evade duty proved when invoice issued without supplying goods. Duty paid by manufacturer and goods diverted by dealers liable for confiscation. Documents issued not valid for passing credit. Dealers liable to penalty.
personal penalty imposed on proprietor, penalty on broker and commission agent and penalty on directors imposed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 361 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund- Limitation- The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots, Alloy Steel Ingots and casting of M.S. Steel. After scrutiny of the resumed records and conducting some inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant. However even before the issue of show cause notice on 4-5-01 itself, the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.8,00,000. The Appellant filed the appeal to the Tribunal. On the basis of the Tribunal’s final order the appellant vide their letter/application dated 10-11-04 requested for allowing the re-credit of the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- which had been debited by them. As regards the duty demand of Rs.1,59,206/- and penalty of Rs.20,000/- which was upheld by the Tribunal, the appellant had paid the entire amount of duty and penalty on 9-11-04 and interest on 31-12-04. The Assistant Commissioner, however, vide order-in-original dated 9-2-05 rejected the aforesaid refund claim on the ground that the amount which was paid by the appellant through debit entry No. 17 dated 4-5-01 in the Cenvat credit account, cannot be considered as pre-deposit under Section 35F and hence for its refund, the refund application as per the provisions of Section 11B should have been filed. The appellant filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against the above order-in-original and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order-in-appeal upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed. In the light of the various decisions held that- when the duty is paid under protest, the period of limitation would start to run from the date of final decision in the assessee’s own case. Since in this case, the appeal was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the Appellant, on 28-10-04, the limitation period for filing refund application under Section 11B has to be counted from 28-10-04 and since the refund application has been made on 10-11-04, the same is within time. Since the refund claim is of Cenvat credit debited on 4-1-05 in RG 23A Pt. II account, in view of clause (c) of 1st proviso to Section 11B(2) of principles of unjust enrichment will not be applicable. Thus, the impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund claim is not correct and hence, the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 357 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal- Revenue has come in appeal against the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowing relief to the assessee on merits, waving penalty and interest. Held that- We are surprised to note how the learned Commissioner (Appeals) without evaluating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, could safely rely on the submission of the assessee when evidence on record self-speak the nature of the allegation and gravity thereof, thus, it would be proper to remit back the matter for reappraisal and evaluation of evidence giving regard to the weight of evidence and to come to a rational conclusion. When governing facts and surrounding circumstances suggest fate of the fact, there is no question of any assumption or presumption which are sworn enemies of justice. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) after granting fair opportunity to both the sides shall properly consider weight of evidence and pleadings of both sides and pass a reasoned and speaking order on both the aspect of merit as well as on limitation issue, which have emanated from cause of action. In the result, we remand the matter to the learned lower appellate authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
....
|
