Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 161 to 180 of 82128 Records

• 2025 (5) TMI 936
  

  Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - Rejection of the applications filed by the appellant (M/s. Zydus Healthcare Limited) for special rate fixation on the ground that they have foregone such option is legally not tenable - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of section 35G (1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 clearly reveals that no appeal shall lie before the High Court from any order passed by the learned Tribunal (on or after the 1st day of July, 2003) if it is an order which relates among other things to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment.

  Since the matter relates to valuation, this High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or try or determine the issue as sought to be raised by the Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Siliguri.

  Liberty granted to the appellant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for redressal of their grievances, if any, in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 855
  

  Clandestine removal - demand baed on statements recorded and documents seized during investigation - admissible evidences or not - HELD THAT:- In this case the case of clandestine removal has been booked against the appellant on the basis of certain loose papers recovered during the course of investigation, on the basis of certain hard disk containing in the Computer Process Unit were recovered during the course of investigation and various statements cannot be recorded during the course of investigation. The charge of clandestine removal of goods is a serious charge and to prove clandestine removal of goods, this Tribunal in the case of Arya Fibres Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad – II [2013 (11) TMI 626 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has laid down the test to verify the alleged clandestine removal of goods, and it was held that 'There should be corroborative evidence by way of statements of purchasers, distributors or dealers, record of unaccounted raw material purchased or consumed and not merely the recording of confessional statements.'

  It is found that in this case, the name of the buyers are very much available with the Revenue, but no investigation was conducted with the alleged buyers by the Revenue to prove their case. Moreover, the name of transporters were also mentioned in the invoices, no investigation was conducted at the end of the transporters whether they have transported the goods or not. Further to manufactures, such a huge quantity of goods cleared without payment of duty, the production capacity of the appellant is required to be ascertained. Moreover, for manufacture of such a huge quantity, how much raw material procured by the appellant and from where, how much electricity has been consumed by the appellant, how much labour charges have been paid by the appellant no investigation was done to that effect. All these things are required to allege clandestine removal of goods. Further, how the payments of clandestine removal of goods is received by the appellant and how the payment of raw material made by the appellants. These efforts have not been made by the Revenue. Moreover, the case has been booked on the basis of kacha receipt during the course of adjudication and various statements recorded during the course of investigation.

  The statements recorded during the course of investigation are not admissible evidence to allege clandestine removal of goods.

  The charge of clandestine removal of goods on the basis of documents recovered during the course of investigation without corroboration are not relied upon documents - In the absence of any corroborative evidence to allege clandestine removal of goods, it is found that charge of clandestine removal of goods is not sustainable against the appellant and the same is on the assumption and presumptions, therefore, the duty cannot be demanded on the basis of assumptions and presumptions.

  Except the admitted demand by the appellant, rest of the demand is dropped. Consequently, no penalties imposable on the appellant. The appellant is required to pay admitted amount of duty along with interest, if not already paid. The currency seized during the course of investigation is required to be released to the appellant.

  Conclusion - i) Clandestine removal must be proved by tangible, corroborated evidence, not mere assumptions or internal records. ii) Statements recorded during investigation are inadmissible without examination and cross-examination under Section 9D. iii) Demand of duty, interest, and penalty cannot be sustained on the basis of uncorroborated evidence and procedural lapses. iv) Admitted and paid duty amounts must be accepted, but unsubstantiated additional demands must be dropped.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 845
  

  Levy of Excise Duty - fly ash coming into being in the course of manufacture of electricity by burning coal - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner(Appeals) has given a detailed finding relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Moti Laminates vs. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad [1995 (2) TMI 67 - SUPREME COURT], Union of India v. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. [2003 (10) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT] and Madras High Court’s decision in the case of Mettur Thermal Power Stationv. C.B.E. & C, New Delhi [2015 (9) TMI 152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where it was held that resins, even if they could last for 15 days under controlled conditions, were not marketable or capable of being marketed. Therefore, they could not be subjected to excise duty.

  Thus, the issue is not more res integra. In order the demand the Excise Duty, manufacture of the goods in term of Section 2 (f) of the CEA 1944, is being consistently held as an essential element. In the present case, the Revenue has not brought in any evidence to the effect that fly ash has been manufactured as a planned activity. It is seen that it is arising out as a by-product in the manufacture of the end product when Electricity is generated by using the coal in the furnace.

  Conclusion - The Revenue has not brought in any evidence to the effect that fly ash has been manufactured as a planned activity. It is seen that it is arising out as a by-product in the manufacture of the end product when Electricity is generated by using the coal in the furnace, and cannot be subjected to levy of excise duty.

  Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 797
  

  Refund of excess excise duty paid pursuant to finalization of provisional assessments for the period September 1998 to March 2005 - Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The refund order dated 07/5/2012 that this OIA was accepted by the Committee of Commissioners as legal and proper and no further appeal was preferred by the Revenue before the Tribunal. Therefore, for all the practical purposes, the OIA dated 30/11/2011, holding that the appellant is eligible for refund of the amount along with interest, has reached finality. Once the findings and rulings therein have not been challenged by the Revenue, the directions contained therein are required to be followed up by the lower authorities. Therefore, in terms of this OIA, the appellant was required to be paid the interest on the refund amount.

  It is found that in spite of such clear directions in the OIA which has also been accepted by the Committee of Commissioner, both the Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) (in the impugned order) have completely ignored the directions and have once again gone on some other details about the delay from the side of the appellant in filing of documents, so as to hold that interest cannot be paid. Since the OIA had reached finality, the lower authorities are precluded from taking some other stand to somehow or the other deny the legally payable interest to the appellant, which is not appreciated by the Tribunal. Such an act by the Revenue has not only caused inconvenience to the appellant, but has made the Tribunal spend precious time to go through all the details so as to restore the rightful remedy to the appellant.

  Also, the directions contained in the OIA dated 30/11/2011 are required to be implemented with respect to the interest payable to the appellant.

  Conclusion - The excise duty has been collected improperly and without authority of law - in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution. The refund claim of Rs. 2,37,28,797/- is proper and admissible, and the appellant is entitled to receive the refund amount along with interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 642
  

  Availment of Cenvat Credit after lapse of considerable time from the rebate sanction orders - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- As per appellant, they challenged the said rebate orders first at the commissioner (Appeals) level and then before the Joint Secretary to Government of India in revision application. While decision in their revision application before the Joint Secretary to Government of India was getting delayed, they decided to take the Cenvat Credit in March, 2010 due to financial problems - The order of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India also seen, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal/ Order-in-Original and remanded the case back to the original authority to decide a fresh with direction that “if any excess duty is paid, the same being deposited with the Government is to be returned to the party in the manner, in which it was paid”. In effect, entire rebate amount should have been paid by the rebate sectioning authority in the same mode of payment of Excise Duty. Having said so, there are no case from the department’s side.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The disputed credit was taken by the appellant on 30/31st, March 2010 whereas the show cause notice was issued on October 7th, 2013 which is beyond the normal period. The Cenvat Credit taken and utilized by any assessee during a month is reflected in respective ER-1 returns which are filed regularly with the department. The argument that the issue came to light only during audit of the records of the appellant is not convincing. If they had already disclosed availment of credit in ER-1 returns which were in possession of the department, appellant cannot be blamed for non scrutiny of the said returns - the show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of time and the grounds taken for invoking extended period of limitation are not sustainable.

  Conclusion - i) If they had already disclosed availment of credit in ER-1 returns which were in possession of the department, appellant cannot be blamed for non scrutiny of the said returns. ii) The invocation of extended period of limitation is not sustainable where the facts were disclosed in statutory returns and no suppression or concealment occurred.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 641
  

  Classification of goods - classifiable under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Chapter 34 - entitlement of exemption under N/N. 3/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - extended period of limitation - Penalty on appellant company - Separate penalty imposed on the proprietor.

  Classification of goods - classifiable under Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 or under Chapter 34 - HELD THAT:- From a perusal of the said Tariff Headings under 3403, it is found that Chapter Heading 3403 deals with ‘Lubricating Preparations’. It is on record that the goods manufactured by the appellant-company are used as ‘solutions for lubrication of chain conveyors in LPG bottling plants, potassium base brown soap, anti-adhesive for batch off. conkote equivalent, conkote brown soap, sodium hypochlorite and detergent powder’ - Chapter Heading 3403 specifically covers lubricating preparations. As per the interpretative rules for classification of goods, when a product is classifiable under more than one Chapter Heading, the Chapter Heading which is more specific is to be preferred over the general heading. In the present case, the goods manufactured by the appellant viz. lubricating preparations, are specifically mentioned under Chapter Heading 3403 and accordingly, thus the appropriate classification of the impugned goods is under the Chapter Heading 3403 only.

  Entitlement of exemption under N/N. 3/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - appellants contended that they were of the bona fide belief that the said goods would be classifiable under Tariff Item No.1518 0040 of the CETA which was exempted under N/N. 3/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 - HELD THAT:- The goods are not classifiable under the Tariff Heading 15180040 and hence, the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the said exemptions.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellants have not suppressed any information from the Department and the Department had approved their classification. Thus, it is observed that the Department was aware that the appellant had been classifying the said goods under Chapter Heading 1518 and availing the benefit of Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. dated 24.02.2005, as amended by Notification Nos. 10/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 and 12/2012-C.E. dated 17.03.2012. Thus, the submission made by the appellants that the Department was well aware of the classification adopted by the appellant and the benefit of the said Notification availed by them agreed upon and hence, the allegation of suppression of facts is not established in this case. Under these circumstances, the demands confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. Accordingly, the demand confirmed is restricted to the normal period of limitation.

  Penalty on appellant company - HELD THAT:- Since there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade the duty established in this case, it is held that no penalty imposable on the appellant-company. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant-company is set aside.

  Separate penalty imposed on the proprietor - HELD THAT:- It is a settled law that that identity of a proprietor and its proprietorship concern are one and the same and hence, separate demands cannot be raised against both the proprietor and the proprietorship concern - a separate demand cannot be raised against the proprietor. As the demand against the proprietor is not sustained, no penalty is imposable on the proprietor / appellant no. 2.

  Conclusion - i) The impugned goods are rightly classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3403 99 00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Accordingly, the benefit provided under Notification No. 3/2005-C.E. dated 24.02.2005, as amended, is not available to the appellants. ii) The demand confirmed in the impugned order by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. The demand is restricted to the normal period of limitation, which is payable, along with interest thereon. iii) The penalties imposed on the appellants herein are set aside.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 640
  

  Denial of CENVAT Credit - levy of penalty - entitlement to take cenvat credit on the basis of invoices issued by second stage dealer alleging that only invoices has been issued, no goods have been received by the Appellant No. 1 - HELD THAT:- The case of the revenue is that first stage dealer or the second stage dealer are non existent during the impugned period. The Appellant No. 1 has taken the credit against invoice issued by the second stage dealer and have received the goods which were entered in the statutory records and further used in the manufacture of final product on which they have paid the duty. If case of the revenue is that the Appellant No. 1 has not received the inputs then question arises from where the Appellant No. 1 has received the inputs, the investigations has not been done to that extent. There is no investigation done at the end of the transporter to find out whether the Appellant No. 1 has received inputs or not? The Appellant No. 1 is entitled to take cenvat credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the second stage dealer along with inputs and all the requirements of the invoices has been fulfilled in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which were found to be correct in the invoices issued by the second stage dealer and the Appellant No. 1 has made payment through account payee cheque. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that in the absence of any supporting evidence, that Appellant No. 1 has not received the goods in the factory premises.

  Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax vs. Juhi Alloys Ltd. [2014 (1) TMI 1475 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court observed 'The assessee had received the inputs which were entered in the statutory records maintained by the assessee. The goods were demonstrated to have travelled to the premises of the assessee under the cover of Form 31 issued by the Trade Tax Department, and the ledge account as well as the statutory records establish the receipt of the goods. In such a situation, it would be impractical to require the assessee to go behind the records maintained by the first stage dealer. The assessee, in the present case, was found to have duly acted with all reasonable diligence in its dealings with the first stage dealer.'

  Penalty also not imposable.

  Conclusion - The appellant has correctly taken the cenvat credit on the invoices issued by second sage dealer accompanying the goods and in the absence of any evidence placed on the record by the revenue that if the Appellant No. 1 has not received the goods then from where they procured the inputs to manufacture the final products on which they have paid the duty. Penalty also set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 639
  

  Clandestine removal - print outs taken from the hard disks found in the residential premises of director of M/s Trikoot Iron & Steel Casting Ltd. - admissible evidence or not - statements recorded during the course of investigations which were subsequently retracted by the appellants are admissible in terms of section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not.

  Whether the third party evidence is admissible or not? - HELD THAT:- The said issue has been examined by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L.K Adwani [1997 (4) TMI 524 - DELHI HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held documents recovered from third party to allege appellants clandestine removal should be corroborated by some positive evidence recovered from the appellant which Revenue has failed. In that circumstances, it is held that third party evidence is not admissible evidence in the absence of any corroboration.

  Statements recorded during the course of investigations which were subsequently retracted by the appellants are admissible in terms of section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or not - HELD THAT:- The said statements are required to be tested in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act and i.e, the statement recorded during the course of investigation is to be examined in chief and thereafter the adjudicating authority has to take a decision that the said statement record during the course of investigation is admissible or not which revenue failed to do so. In that circumstances, the statements recorded during the course of investigation which later on retracted by the appellants are not admissible to allege clandestine removal by the appellants.

  Conclusion - The charge of clandestine removal which is a serious one has not been established by the Revenue with corroborative evidences, moreover, on the basis of the electronic evidence the case has been made out against main party M/s Trikoot has already been decided in favour of the appellant dropping the charge of clandestine manufacturing removal. Therefore, the charge of clandestine removal against the appellant are not sustainable. Consequently, the demand of duty and imposition of penalties on the appellants are not sustainable.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 638
  

  Refund of unutilized cenvat credit lying in its books of account upon closure of its factory - Section 11B(2)(c), or in the alternate Section 11B(2)(d), provides for refund of unutilized cenvat credit for the stated reason of closure of factory or not - cash refund of accumulated credit as per Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - applicability of decision of the three-judge bench of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Gauri Plasticulture Pvt Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 820 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] or the Tribunal's decision in M/s. ATV Projects India Ltd [2023 (9) TMI 802 - CESTAT MUMBAI]? - rebuttal of presumption of unjust enrichment or not.

  Whether Section 11B(2)(c), or in the alternate Section 11B(2)(d), provides for refund of unutilized cenvat credit for the stated reason of closure of factory? - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s contention that clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B would entitle the appellant to claim refund of unutilized cenvat credit lying in its cenvat account at the time of closure of appellant’s factory as there is no express prohibition stated therein is misconceived. On the contrary, as elucidated supra, Section 11B itself is a provision that mandates that a refund claim is subject to the proof of not passing on the burden of duty to others and clause (c) of proviso to sub-section (2) which stipulates “refund of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued, under this Act”, when read with the said sub-section (2) and sub-section (1) of Section 11B, would only necessarily mean that such refund of credit of duty paid on inputs/input services are governed by the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which has been notified vide notification No.23/2004-CE (NT) dated 10-09-2004 as amended in exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) and section 94 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), and govern the taking of credit of duty on inputs, its utilization, its refund etc, being a self-contained scheme.

  Likewise, the contention of the appellant that clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B would entitle the appellant to claim refund of unutilized cenvat credit lying in its cenvat account at the time of closure of appellant’s factory, is also untenable. Given that clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B already mentions refund of credit of duty paid on excisable goods used as inputs in accordance with the rules made, or any notification issued, under this Act, it is evident that clause (d) ibid can therefore only cover what is not a situation that would otherwise come under clause (c) ibid, which makes it amply clear that clause (d) ibid when it stipulates, inter-alia, “the duty of excise paid by the manufacturer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such duty to any other person” can then only be taken as referring to a situation where duty of excise has been paid on the goods manufactured by the manufacturer, which if he is claiming refund, ought to be that the incidence of which has not been passed on to any other person. Such is not the case here as the appellant is not claiming refund of duty on goods that have been manufactured by the appellant but the claim is for refund of accumulated cenvat credit on account of closure of appellant’s factory - the said claim cannot come under the ambit of clause (d) ibid, for the aforesaid reasons.

  Whether Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides for cash refund of accumulated credit? - HELD THAT:- While Rule 5A and Rule 5B too provide for refund of cenvat credit in certain circumstances they have neither been relied upon nor are relevant for the issue under consideration. No doubt, Rule 5 of the CCR too governs the refund of cenvat credit in the circumstances more specifically stipulated therein and the notification No.27/2012-CE (NT) issued under Rule 5 of the CCR specifies the conditions to be satisfied to seek refund of cenvat credit. A plain reading of the said Rule and the said notification, and particularly the requirement in para 3(g) of the notification No.27/2012 ibid which stipulates that at the time of sanctioning the refund claim the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner shall satisfy himself or herself in respect of the correctness of the claim and the fact that goods cleared for export or services provided have actually been exported, leaves no room for any doubt that the refund under Rule 5 of CCR would arise only in respect of the unutilized cenvat credit accumulated in the course of engaging in export of goods and/or services.

  On the contrary, the efforts have been to only submit that even otherwise there is no prohibition under Rule 5 for refund of accumulated cenvat credit on account of closure of factory. For the aforesaid reasons and for other reasons that are further elaborated infra, it is held that the said contention of the appellant as wholly untenable and contrary to the statutory provisions governing refund of cenvat credit as provided in the self-contained CCR read with Section 11B of the CEA.

  Whether this Tribunal has to adhere to the Tribunal decision in M/s. ATV Projects India Ltd v CCE or whether this Tribunal has to adhere to the decision of the three Judge Bench of the Honourable High Court of Bombay in M/s. Gauri Plasticulture P Ltd v. the CCE, Mumbai IV? - HELD THAT:- It is observed that the decision in M/s. ATV Projects India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Raigad post the decision of the full bench of the Bombay High Court in M/s. Gauri Plasticulture Pvt Ltd v. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, though cognizant of the same, has nonetheless chosen not to follow the said decision, on the ground, inter-alia, that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gangadhara Palo Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer [2011 (3) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the decision of Kunhayammed and Others Vs. State of Kerala was further referred and clarified, was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. To conclude that the Tribunal could differ with the jurisdictional High Court, reliance was placed on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Mira Silk Mills Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai, [2003 (3) TMI 142 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] and para 70 of the decision of the Tribunal in Atma Steels Pvt Ltd v CCE, Chandigarh and others, [1984 (6) TMI 60 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI-LB].

  Thus, in ATV Projects India Ltd [2023 (9) TMI 802 - CESTAT MUMBAI], which incidentally is a decision consequent to a difference of opinion between the two members of the Tribunal sitting as a division bench as answered by a third member upon reference, the Tribunal has gone on to hold that the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Slovak case [2007 (1) TMI 556 - SC ORDER] was a binding precedent under Article 141, and had consequently allowed the appeal of the appellant therein holding that the appellant is entitled to cash refund of CENVAT credit available with it at the time of closure of the factory.

  In T.A. Quereshi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhopal [2006 (12) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT], the Honourable Apex Court was considering whether the heroin seized from a doctor manufacturing the same could be considered to be a business loss under S.254(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee claimed that since heroin seized from him forms part of his stock in trade hence its loss on account of seizure is an allowable deduction while computing his profits and gains of business/profession. While the Tribunal held that the Assessee was entitled to claim the seizure as a business loss, the High Court, looked at explanation to S.37 of the IT Act 1961 which declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.

  A refund of unutilized CENVAT credit lying in the books of accounts of the assessee upon closure of the factory, is not allowable to the Assessee under Section 11B and/or under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as these statutory provisions do not provide for the same. The interpretation of these provisions are not subject to equitable considerations. Even if the assessee is under severe financial stress or undergoing economic hardship, such considerations are not grounds for grant of refund otherwise than as per mandate of statute. Rule 5 cannot be read to say that since there is no prohibition of cash refund of CENVAT credit, such cash refund can be provided. This interpretation would then tantamount to stating something that is not expressed in the statute. From the mere absence of a prohibition, it cannot be inferred the existence of a positive permissory norm, especially in the context of statutorily mandated refund of taxes.

  Conclusion - i) Section 11B(2)(c) and (d) do not provide for refund of unutilized accumulated cenvat credit on closure of factory. ii) Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 allows refund only in cases of export and does not permit refund on closure of manufacturing operations. iii) The appellant failed to rebut the presumption of unjust enrichment due to lack of sufficient evidence regarding the treatment of inputs and capital goods at closure.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 572
  

  Levy of penalty under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - case of duty evasion of the main party settled under SVLDRS, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in the case of Vipinbhai Kantilal Patel vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2024 (5) TMI 412 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] in which the Tribunal has held that appellant has been penalized under Rule 26(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main case of M/s. Phenix Construction Technologies has been settled under SVLDRS 2019 and the appeal was disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 10.06.2021 hence the penalty imposed on the appellant is not sustainable in view of the decision that when the main case of duty evasion is settled under SVLDRS, 2019, penalty on the co-noticee/ appellant shall not survive and the penalty is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.

  The matter is covered by the judgment passed in the case of Vipinbhai Kantilal Patel. Therefore, when the case of duty evasion of the main party M/s. Narendra Plastics Pvt. Limited has been settled under SVLDRS 2019, the penalty on the co-noticee/ appellant cannot survive.

  The penalty is set-aside and the appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 571
  

  Reversal of cenvat credit taken on Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on clearance of input as such to their other unit - extended period of limitation - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appellant has discharged central excise duty and education cess on clearance of their inputs as such from one unit to another, but failed to discharge appropriate SAD on the said inputs. Before the adjudicating authority, it was argued that they are not required to reverse cenvat credit on the inputs cleared as such being an LTU, therefore, even though they had paid central excise duty and cess on the inputs cleared as such, no liability accrues for not discharging appropriate SAD on the said inputs.

  A simple reading of the letter reveals that the appellant in the said letter made it very clear that the 4S units will continue as LTUs and the 3S units be permitted to go out of the LTU, Bangalore w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Thus, it cannot be said that the 4S units came to be registered under LTU w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Thus, at the relevant time, the appellant continued to be operating as an LTU and accordingly registered with the Department. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner that the appellant became LTU w.e.f. 01.04.2010 only is contrary to the facts; hence, cannot be sustained.

  Regarding the alternate argument of the appellant that since there was no mechanism under Rule 3(5) of the CCR, 2004 to recover credit (SAD) under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 on inputs cleared as such under Rule 3(5), the demand of the credit cannot be sustained, we find that this Tribunal in the cases of Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. CCE, Jaipur [2019 (3) TMI 776 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and GKN Driveline (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2023 (9) TMI 1131 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] observed that recovery of credit under Rule 3(5), (5A) and (5B) prior to 01.03.2013 is bad in law.

  There are no merit in the impugned order; consequently, the same is set aside and appeal is allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 479
  

  Demand of duty raised on the basis of input output ratio and without having any evidence towards clandestine manufacture and removal of goods without payment of duty - confiscation of quantity of 157.436 M.T. of Sponge Iron found in excess, under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules - HELD THAT:- There are force in the appellant’s argument that the entire proceedings have been built on the assumptions of the input/output ratio of Sponge Iron vis-à-vis end product. The Revenue has considered the input / output ratio of 1 : 1.67 as sacrosanct based on the expert opinion of Institute of Mineral Technology, Govt of India and another opinion of Popuri Engineering & Consultancy Services, Hyderabad. Revenue has not brought in any corroborative evidence to the effect that the manufactured goods have been cleared clandestinely and cash transactions have taken place. No statements have been recorded from any of the purported buyers, vehicle owners. No private records with reference to the cash transactions have been seized. All these make to conclude that the Department has proceeded purely based on the assumptions and presumptions basis without verifying their allegations.

  The facts of the present case are similar with the Revenue mainly relying on the input / output ratio relied on source which are not tested independently by them and hence these case laws are squarely applicable in the present case. It is also found that the alleged shortage is also not properly corroborated by the Revenue. Hence, the Redemption Fine and penalty imposed are not legally sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order set aside and the appeal allowed on merits.

  Time limitation - HELD THAT:- In cases of allegation of clandestine removals, it requires detailed investigation, verification of various documents so as to finalize the Show Cause Notice. Since no specific facts have been brought in the SCN about the suppression on the part of the appellant, the delay in issuing of the SCN after having all the facts on record does not come to the rescue of the Department. Hence, the impugned order is set aside even on account of limitation.

  Conclusion - i) The demands for excise duty based solely on input-output ratio estimates without independent verification and corroborative evidence of clandestine manufacture and removal cannot be sustained. ii) The alleged shortage is also not properly corroborated by the Revenue. Hence, the Redemption Fine and penalty imposed are not legally sustainable. iii) Since no specific facts have been brought in the SCN about the suppression on the part of the appellant, the delay in issuing of the SCN after having all the facts on record does not come to the rescue of the Department. Hence, the impugned order is set aside even on account of limitation.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 478
  

  Maintainability of Department's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), given that the same order has already been set aside by the Tribunal in a prior appeal preferred by the assessee - HELD THAT:- As could be noticed from the development of the proceedings initiated after issue of Show-cause, vide Order-In-Original dated 30.08.2013 in ORCHID CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD [2017 (4) TMI 799 - CESTAT MUMBAI], the entire demand of excise duty in the show cause was confirmed alongwith interest and proportionate penalty against which Appellant preferred appeal No. E/85851/2014-Mumbai that was admittedly disposed of by the Tribunal by setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.08.2013.

  The appeal filed by the Department is dismissed since the relief sought in the said appeal seeking non application of cum-duty benefit could not be extended when duty demand as such was held to be unsustainable.

  Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 477
  

  Refund of Additional duties of Customs/Countervailing Duty (CVD), Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD), Education Cess, and Secondary & Higher Education Cess paid consequent to cancellation of export orders under the Advance License scheme - transition from Central Excise regime to Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime - Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The appellants had duly followed the procedure and conditions prescribed in complying with the obligations under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Customs Act, 1962, inasmuch as upon identifying that they are unable to fulfill the export obligations cast upon them in importation of capital goods/machinery under Advance License scheme, which had arisen consequent to cancellation of export orders, they had paid the applicable duties of customs vide challans dated 29.05.2018, 14.06.2018 and 04.09.2018, as authorised and certified by the Customs authorities at Nagpur. The nature of duties paid by the appellants remains as the duties of customs which otherwise would have been paid at the time of import of machines under such Advance License, even though these are being paid now as duty foregone. It is not in dispute that the additional duties of customs equivalent to the duty of excise, Education Cess & Secondary Higher Education Cess leviable on the imported goods was available as CENVAT credit under the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Post introduction of GST regime, CVD on imported article is presently charged as Integrated Goods and Service Tax (IGST) which is levied under Section 5 of the IGST Act, 2017 and collected in terms of Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the same is allowed as input duty credit Section 16(1) of CGST Act, 2017.

  The provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, empowers Central Excise officers to take action for recovery of arrears and pursuing the recovery with the assessee. If dues remain unrecovered even after taking action under section 11 ibid, then action is to be taken under provisions of section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 which have been made applicable in Central Excise cases, vide Notification No. 68/63-Central Excise dated 04.05.1963, as amended, issued under section 12 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The process of recovery of arrears starts with confirmation of demand against the defaulter assessee and includes a number of appellate forums wherein assessee as well as Department can go for appeal. In the present case, the duty/cess have been paid by the appellants voluntarily along with applicable interest, and hence the finding given by the learned Commissioner is contrary to the legal position and the procedures prescribed by the Government. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is not legally sustainable and the appellants are eligible for refund of excess CENVAT credit paid by them, as this is specifically allowed to be refunded in terms of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017.

  The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of New Age Laminators Pvt. Ltd. [2022 (3) TMI 748 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] that refund of CVD and SAD paid for redemption of Advance Authorisation scheme is admissible as refund under Section 142(3) and (6) of the CGST Act, 2017.

  Further, the issue of reversal of excess CENVAT credit under the transitional arrangement as provided under Section 142 of CGST Act, 2017 has already been addressed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in various cases, and it was held that cash refund of such excess CENVAT credit is permissible.

  When the Central Excise Act, 1944 amongst other laws relating to old tax regime was repealed by Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 and that the CCR is also being superseded vide Notification No.20/2017-C.E. (N.T.) dated 30.06.2017, by the Central Government for smooth implementation of transfer to GST regime in indirect taxation, it is found that the provisions of Section 142 of the CGST Act, 2017 are sufficient to provide for the tax administration for sanction of cash refund in circumstances stated therein, and I find that there is no need and it is not legally feasible to make any specific provision in CENVAT statute itself, for enabling cash refund of excess/eligible CENVAT credit relating to earlier regime while moving to the new GST regime.

  There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it has rejected the refund of CENVAT credit, which is contrary to the legal provisions of Section 142(3) and Sections 142(6), 1428(a) of the CGST Act, 2017 and thus, it does not stand the scrutiny of law. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order dated 06.11.2020, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellants.

  Conclusion - The appellants' claim for refund cannot be denied on the ground that the duties paid are customs duties and not excise duty, since the additional duties are leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act and are recognized as CENVAT credit under the erstwhile law.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 476
  

  Levy of service tax on construction of residential complex services for the period from April, 2014 to June, 2017 - time limitation - penalties - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal [2016 (6) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The Hon’ble High Court held that there was no statutory mechanism to ascertain the value of service component and that service tax could not be levied on value of undivided share of land. Neither Service Tax (Valuation) Rules, 2006 nor Finance Act, 1994 have any provisions for determining value of service covered under Section 65(105)(zzzh).

  The aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court, even though had been passed in the context of service tax provisions as applicable prior to 01.07.2012, is equally applicable to the period after 01.07.2012 - Appellants were not liable for payment of service tax on construction of residential complex service during April, 2014 to June, 2017 and the appeal is liable to be allowed on merits.

  Time limitation - HELD THAT:- For demanding service tax for the period April, 2014 to June, 2017, SCN had been issued on 07.11.2019, by invoking extended period of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the invocation of extended period by holding that the decision in the case of Suresh Kumar Bansal [2016 (6) TMI 192 - DELHI HIGH COURT] was for the period prior to 01.07.2012 and that the Appellants have been holding service tax registration for a long period and accordingly, they were under legal obligation to file ST-3 return and pay the service tax.

  Penalties - HELD THAT:- As the demands itself are being set aside, penalties under Section 78(1) as well as Section 77(2) are also liable to be set aside.

  Conclusion - i) The appellant's contract for construction and sale of residential complexes is a composite contract involving sale of immovable property and goods, and no statutory mechanism existed to determine the service component. Therefore, the demand of service tax on the entire amount is unsustainable. ii) Invocation of extended period of limitation is upheld. iii) As the demands itself are being set aside, penalties under Section 78(1) as well as Section 77(2) are also liable to be set aside.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 454
  

  100% EOU - benefit of exemption from BCD under N/N.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 & NN/N.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - exemption from CVD under N/N. 6/2006-CE (List 5) - exemption from SAD under N/N.12/2012-CE (List-8) dated 17.03.2012 - extended period of limitation.

  HELD THAT:- Admittedly, appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No.22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 on parts which were used in the manufacture of SPV module cleared to DTA. However, appellant had claimed exemption on the said parts from BCD under alternative exemption Notifications No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and Notification No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005; also they claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 from additional duty of customs (CVD) and SAD.

  On the admissibility of benefit of N/N.06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and N/N.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, this Tribunal in the case of HHV Solar Technologies [2024 (10) TMI 46 - CESTAT BANGALORE] observed 'the claim of the appellant that benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 to the parts procured and used in the non-conventional devices or systems specified in List 5/List 8 of the respective Notifications, as the case may be, cannot be allowed and the Commissioner has rightly denied the benefit of the said exemption Notifications.'

  Thus, the appellants are not eligible to the benefit of exemption from Additional Customs Duty [CVD] under Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2206 and Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. Consequently, the Appellants are also not eligible to exemption from SAD.

  Admissibility of N/N.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and N/N.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - HELD THAT:- This Tribunal in similar circumstances in HHV Solar Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (10) TMI 46 - CESTAT BANGALORE] after recording that the appellant could claim the said Notification as an alternative argument even if they had not claimed earlier, remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the admissibility of the benefit of the said Notifications.

  The adjudicating authority examined threadbare various conditions of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and the procedure followed by a 100% EOU in receiving raw materials, its utilization and clearances of the manufactured goods, etc., and finally arrived at the conclusion that there is substantial compliance with the conditions contained under the said Rules by an 100% EOU, hence, eligible to the benefit of the said Notification - there are no discrepancy in the reasoning recorded by the learned Commissioner in extending the benefit of Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and Notification No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005. The said order of the Adjudicating Authority has been accepted by the Department. Thus, applying the said reasoning and conclusion to the present case and also for the sake of uniformity in assessment, the benefit of the said Notifications cannot be denied to the Appellant.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant is a 100% EOU and the receipt and disposal of the raw material had been duly recorded in the statutory records prescribed and the present issue relates to admissibility of alternate exemption Notification No.25/1999-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and Notification No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005, and also benefit of Notification No.6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 claimed by the appellant on the basis of the records maintained, therefore, allegation of suppression or mis-declaration of facts in our view cannot be sustained. Thus, invoking extended period of limitation to confirm the demand cannot be sustained. Consequently, imposition of penalty and confiscation on the same reasoning also cannot be sustained.

  Conclusion - The Appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption from BCD under Notification No.25/1999-2015-Cus. dated 28.02.1999 and Notification No.24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005, but not to the benefit of CVD under Notification No.06/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and consequently SAD is also inadmissible. The demand be re-determined for CVD and SAD with interest for normal period of limitation. Penalties imposed are set aside.

  Appeal disposed off by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 403
  

  Levy of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 23/2003-CE and Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - clearances made by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to its sister units located in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) - leviability of duty on destruction of expired tablets/ raw materials/remnant samples in the factory premises.

  Levy of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 23/2003-CE and Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - clearances made by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) to its sister units located in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) - HELD THAT:- In the case of Moser Baer India Ltd [2009 (6) TMI 48 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)], one of the issues, inter alia, was of imposition of SAD on clearances from 100% E.O.U. The value included goods cleared in DTA by E.O.U and exempted from sales tax/ VAT. Hon’ble Larger Bench concluded vide para 1, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4, 7.6 and para 8, 12-13 that if an article on which sales tax/VAT or other local taxes are leviable and same is notified by the Central Government by notification issued under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as attracting SAD @ 4% ad valorem, then SAD would be chargeable on import of the article, even if some State Governments give exemption overall or for some area of a particular state and if that article has been fully exempted from payment of sales tax/VAT. Therefore, we conclude that on merits if supplies are made by 100%EOU to specified exempt area, even if such area is not leviable to VAT/sales tax, it would still be chargeable to 4% SAD. Even the learned counsel had fairly conceded that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Moser Baer India Ltd is against them.

  Leviability of duty on destruction of expired tablets/ raw materials/remnant samples in the factory premises - HELD THAT:- In Sun pharmaceutical Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Daman [2008 (4) TMI 636 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], it has been held that for expired medicines, if despite waiting for long for permission to destroy the goods, no permission is received and the destruction is carried out by party on its own in their premises, then the demand of duty cannot be sustained. It is not coming out from the records in this case as to whether permission was sought for by the appellant and still the party had destroyed the goods circumventing requirement of grant of some reasonable period to the department or not. If reasonable time was not allowed by the party, the duty shall be demandable otherwise not. On the issue of destruction of goods, further details are warranted. These aspects need to be looked into by the adjudicating authority with all the relevant details along with limitation issue.

  Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Regarding filing of regular returns, it is observed that they have not disclosed availment of benefit at Sr. 1 of N/N. 23/2003 and have indicated only Sr. 2 of the above notification. Therefore, the appellant’s argument on invocation of extended period fails.

  Conclusion - i) If supplies are made by 100%EOU to specified exempt area, even if such area is not leviable to VAT/sales tax, it would still be chargeable to 4% SAD. ii) Regarding duty on destruction of expired tablets/ raw materials/remnant samples in the factory premises, reasonable time was not allowed by the party, the duty shall be demandable otherwise not. On the issue of destruction of goods, further details are warranted. These aspects need to be looked into by the adjudicating authority with all the relevant details along with limitation issue. iii) The appellant’s argument on invocation of extended period fails.

  Appeal partly allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 402
  

  Penalty under Rule 209A of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - floating dummy companies and were availing Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefit under N/N. 175/1986- CE dt.01.03.1986 in respect of clearances made by the said 8 companies - whether in the given facts of the case and evidence on record, the 8 companies who have claimed SSI benefit were dummy units of the appellant and therefore, their clearances were required to be clubbed together for denial of the benefit under SSI scheme under N/N. 175/1986-CE dt.01.03.1986 or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- Some of the grounds taken by the learned Advocate have some merit inasmuch as the demand against the co-noticees, which was dropped, did not participate in the denovo proceedings on the assumption that they were not party to the remand proceedings but then evidence in relation to the said parties was taken into account while coming to the conclusion in respect of the present appellant as well as penalty was also imposed.

  It is obvious that the Adjudicating Authority, on the grounds that they did not participate despite notice of hearing, took into consideration the evidence on record and proceeded to decide the matter ex parte qua the co-noticees, which ultimately resulted in demand of duty from the appellant as well as imposition of penalty on appellant and other co-noticees including the Managing Director - there are no force in the submission of the learned Advocate that the Adjudicating Authority cannot involve the remaining 8 companies in the denovo adjudication proceedings and also in their submission that without reliance placed on their evidence the case cannot be made out against the appellant. It is pertinent to note that if it is taken as if these companies were not covered by the remand proceedings, the order concerning dropping the charges against them would stand confirmed and therefore, those evidences cannot be again applied against the appellant in this round of adjudication.

  In this case, though the co-noticees have had their own reasons for not joining the adjudication proceedings, despite having received the notice for personal hearing, the Adjudicating Authority was left with no other choice but to proceed based on the evidence on record - the matter needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall now give fresh notice of hearing to appellant as well as all the co-noticees as covered in the original SCNs and original Adjudication Order.

  Both the appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 401
  

  CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant-company on inputs purchased from a registered dealer - credit availed credit irregularly on the basis of invoices without actual receipt of inputs, by way of paper transactions - imposition of penalties under Rule 26(1) and (2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 upon the co-appellants - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- In this case, the appellant-company was procuring inputs through the dealer, namely, M/s. Vikash Industrial Corporation, who is a registered dealer. The said dealer has shown, in his invoices, the manufacturers as M/s. Tata Steel Limited, M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited, M/s. Jindal Steel Products Limited, M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Limited, M/s. Garden Reach Ship Builders & Engineers Limited, M/s. Ambuja Cements Limited, M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited, M/s. Skipper Limited, etc.

  There is no statement from the registered supplier cum dealer in the instant case i.e. M/s Vikash Industrial Corporation (proprietor: Sri Dipak Kumar Nathani), denying supply of goods to the appellant-company. If such be the admitted position, and it is said so after carefully going through the statement of Sri Dipak Kumar Nathani dated 05.02.2013, then we find it difficult to hold that the appellant-company had been required to go behind the covering documents issued by the said M/s. Vikash Industrial Corporation under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - when all relevant particulars stood duly mentioned in the said invoices, it was wholly impractical and quite unreasonable to expect the recipient-company to go behind the said documents, examine the actual procurement of goods from the concerned manufacturer and establish transportation of such goods from the factory premises or godown or other premises of the concerned manufacturers up to the premises of the concerned dealer and then to the recipient’s premises.

  During the course of investigation, statements of the owners of few vehicles were recorded, who stated that they had not transported the said goods. However, most of these statements of the vehicle owners were recorded after 3-4 years of the events. Further, these persons from whom statements were recorded, are the owners of the transporting vehicles and no statement from the drivers of the said vehicles have been recorded in this case - Moreover, the above vehicle owners were required to be questioned during the course of investigation as to whether they were driving the said vehicles for transportation of goods during the impugned period or not. If these owners of the transporting vehicles were found to be driving the vehicles during the said period, only in that case and if not proven otherwise, the statements recorded from such transporters may be admissible, although not conclusive. In these circumstances, we find that the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant no. 1 cannot be denied.

  Mere recording statements from transporters/vehicle owners, with regard to few invoices, cannot be the reason to deny the whole of the CENVAT Credit availed by the appellant-company. The Revenue has also failed to bring on record as to from where the appellant-company procured the inputs, as it is the claim of the appellants that the inputs procured by them have been used in the manufacture of their final products, which have finally suffered duty - the CENVAT Credit cannot be denied to the appellant.

  Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant-company had purchased its requirements from M/s Vikash Industrial Corporation without any notice or knowledge of its internal workings and nothing was brought to our attention wherefrom it may be concluded that it had reason to doubt the genuineness of the supplies effected by the said Vikash Industrial Corporation. Receipt of the disputed inputs stood duly evidenced by the appellant-company’s receipted challans, stores receipt vouchers and stock ledgers and the appellant-company throughout maintained its stand that without receiving such inputs, it would not have been possible to manufacture finished goods subsequently cleared to the Indian Railways on payment of appropriate duty - the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without specific and concrete findings of fraud, suppression or willful misstatement.

  Penalty - HELD THAT:- As the availment of CENVAT Credit is regularized, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellants.

  Conclusion - i) The Revenue failed to bring on record any evidence to show how the appellant-company could have manufactured the finished goods without receipt of inputs, which were duly accounted for in the appellant's records. Credit cannot be denied. ii) The extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without specific and concrete findings of fraud, suppression or willful misstatement. The mere general observation by the adjudicating authority is insufficient. iii) As the availment of CENVAT Credit is regularized, therefore, no penalty is imposable on the appellants.

  Appeal allowed.

  ---

• 2025 (5) TMI 400
  

  Levy of service tax - services rendered to BBMB, Nangal, a government authority, under the categories of Management, Maintenance and Repair Service and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the services have been rendered to BBMB, Nangal, which is a govt. authority and as per the Board’s Circular No. B-2/08/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004, the services rendered to the govt. authority are not liable to service tax.

  The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has changed the classification Head of services from ‘Management, Maintenance & Repair Services’ to ‘Commercial or Industrial Construction Services’, which is also not permissible under law.

  The issue involved in the present case is also covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Nagarujna Construction Co. [2010 (5) TMI 232 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein it has been held that when the services are rendered to a government organization then it is not subject to service tax.

  Conclusion - The services have been rendered to BBMB, Nangal, which is a govt. authority and as per the Board's Circular No. B-2/08/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004, the services rendered to the govt. authority are not liable to service tax.

  The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed.

  ---

1 ....5678910111213........ 4107