|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 326 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 419 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... s for the appellant. Therefore the C.E. appeal is rejected for non-prosecution. 2. Ordered accordingly.
-
2008 (7) TMI 418 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Appeal by Department ... ... ... ... ..... e. Even he is not present when the case was called for the fourth time. 2. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2008 (7) TMI 417 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Duty under Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 96ZQ of the Rules of 1944 was leviable on the duty payable under Stenters Rules at the stage of finishing process?
Whether change of law w.e.f. 1st March, 2001 brought change in respect of Duty which became payable and paid until 28th Feb., 2001?
Held that:- When the entire processes of stentering was already over, and only thing remaining to be done was, decatising, folding, and packing, that being not the requirement, as a sine qua non, for amounting to "manufacture", it cannot be said, that duty did not stand levied on the said stock of 84407.50 mtrs., or for that matter 54760.95 mtrs. under the Rules of 2000, simply because, decatising, folding, and pressing was yet to be done at the cut off date and time.
Thus, the question no. 1 as framed is answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue, and it is held, that the duty, under Section 3A read with Rule 96ZQ of the Rules, stood levied under the Rules of 2000, at the stage, when one or more processes quoted above were completed, and did not stand deferred to await the finishing processes, like decatising, folding or packing. Thus, we do not find the impugned orders to be sustainable at all. So far question no. 2, as framed, is concerned, that, in our view does not arise, as it is nobody's case, that the change of law w.e.f. 1-3-2001, brought any change in respect of duty becoming payable and paid till 28-2-2001. Appeal allowed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 415 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Condonation of delay of 280 DAYS - Appeal to High Court - Limitation - Held that:- Considering the correspondence annexed to the affidavit dated 24-7-2008 and the inquiry undertaken before recording a decision not to challenge the order of Tribunal, there can be no doubt that the applicant had consciously abandoned the cause and no ground is made out to establish in what manner such a conscious decision is incorrect. Merely because the respondent assessee was pursuing the matter further, cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal was wrong on the basis of judgment on which reliance has been placed by Tribunal being inapplicable. In fact, nothing has been shown as to how the said judgment becomes inapplicable when originally the same order of Tribunal was found to be correct in law and justified on facts. Even the revenue implications were considered by the Commissioner while recording the decision when the particulars of duty and penalty were called for.
In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, in absence of any sufficient cause having been made out, the delay in preferring Tax Appeal cannot be condoned and the application is hereby rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 413 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Sick unit - Held that:- In the background of the facts and findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is apparent that the Tribunal has correctly addressed itself to the issue of financial hardship as well as the fact that the petitioner has been declared a sick industrial unit by the BIFR and has therefore, directed pre-deposit of only about 50% of the duty demand. In the circumstances, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not addressed itself to the issue of the petitioner having been declared as a sick industrial unit by the BIFR does not merit acceptance. Thus no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant any intervention by this Court.
-
2008 (7) TMI 412 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Demand of duty,interest and penalties - Tribunal set aside the levy - Held that:- On an overall appreciation of the aforesaid evidence applying the test of preponderance of probability vis-a-vis the confessional statements it has been found by CESTAT that the conclusion of the adjudicating authority that Cenvat credit claimed is inadmissible, is an incorrect conclusion not supported by the evidence on record.
Thus as seen from the impugned order of CESTAT and the adjudication order, it is a question of appreciating the same set of facts and evidence available on record. The findings recorded by CESTAT summarized hereinbefore would go to indicate that the case put forth by the assessee is a plausible case and in the circumstances, in absence of any corroborative evidence brought on record by revenue, the findings recorded by CESTAT do not call for any interference.
Thus none of the questions, as proposed in each of the tax appeals or otherwise, can be termed to be substantial questions of law. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 410 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Cenvat/Modvat - Fraudulent availment of credit - penalty imposed - Whether the Tribunal is correct in rejecting the investigation report which otherwise clearly indicates the wrong availment of Modvat/Cenvat Credit?
that:- The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the inputs supplied by the respondents were duly received by the manufacturers and the same were used in the goods manufactured, which were cleared on payment of duty. The Tribunal also found that the Department has not been able to prove that any other alternative raw material was received and used in the final products. The Tribunal also held that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the respondents were not challenged by the Department Representative before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also noted that the findings of the Commissioner clearly established that the RT-12 returns have been assessed finally by the Range Officer which contains all the documents including the invoices under dispute on the basis of which the Modvat Credit has been availed and utilised and that payments for the purchase of the inputs have been made through cheque/demand draft.
Thus, there is no merit in these appeals as no question of law, much less substantial, arises from the order of the Tribunal wherein pure findings of fact have been recorded in favour of the respondents. Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 409 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal/Reference to High Court - Question of fact - MODVAT/CENVAT credit - mere fraudulent paper transactions
-
2008 (7) TMI 406 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... of the Tribunal. The Tribunal should also have considered what is the question involved in this case. The Tribunal make such order as would give the appeal Court clear idea as to the reasons that weighed with the Tribunal for making the order. We find that the order of the Tribunal is virtually a non-speaking order. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 3. The order impugned in the present appeal is set aside. Appeal No. E/2243/05-Mum is remitted back to the Tribunal for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with law. 4. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of this order.
-
2008 (7) TMI 405 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Remand - scope of Show cause notice - Held that: - Perusal of the order shows that the appellate authority has held that the order can be made pursuant to the show cause notice only on the points which are mentioned in the show cause notice and it has also held that the ground of limitation is not indicated in the show cause notice and the lower authority was directed to dispose of the proceedings de novo only on the ground indicated in the show cause notice - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 404 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Limitation - extension of 30 days to file the appeal seeked - Held that:- We are fully convinced that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the Appeal to be presented and heard the same on merits, it means he was fully satisfied with sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 29 days and as such the same was condoned. If the Appeal was not allowed to be presented without being satisfied with the delay, the Commissioner could not have even issued the notice of hearing to the Appeal as well as on the stay Application.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the impugned order dated 15th October, 2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the impugned order dated 12th February, 2008 passed by the CESTAT are not sustainable in law and accordingly we set aside both the aforesaid orders and remand back the Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing and final disposal of the same strictly on its own merits in accordance with law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 403 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Writ petition - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... mpany. Writ Petition ex facie is not maintainable. There is no public law element involved. Hence the Petition stands dismissed. 3. We are constrained to pass the above order as the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is not even willing to withdraw the above Petition.
-
2008 (7) TMI 402 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Appellate Tribunal's order - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the course adopted by the Tribunal, of even not referring to the judgments of the Tribunal of which the Appellant was relying, is not proper - In our opinion, it was for the Tribunal to point out, after considering the judgment of the Tribunal on which the Appellant was relying, how those judgments were not relied and how, according to the Tribunal, the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court - the appeal is remanded back to the Tribunal for de novo consideration and decision in accordance with the law - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2008 (7) TMI 400 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the ingredients of the last mentioned class qualify themselves as and are eligible to be called "raw material" for the end product?
Held that:- One of the valid tests, in our opinion, could be that the ingredient should be so essential from the chemical processes culminating in the emergence of the desired end product, that having regard to its importance in and indispensability for the process, it could be said that its very consumption on burning up is its quality and value as raw material. In such a case, the relevant test is not its absence in the end product, but the dependence of the end product for its essential presence at the delivery end of the process. The ingredient goes into the making of the end product in the sense that without its absence the presence of the end product, as such, is rendered impossible. This quality should coalesce with the requirement that its utilization is in the manufacturing process as distinct from the manufacturing apparatus.
Since the CESTAT has not considered the materials on record in the above perspective, the impugned judgments are set aside. The matter is remitted to the CESTAT in each case for dealing with the matter afresh in accordance with law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 396 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Classification - held that - the chemical tests have not been conducted as per the standard; the Chemical Examiner was not aware of the correct standards; - the laboratory tests conducted by the respondents in their own laboratory has not been taken into account; the addition of Sulphur Dioxide and its impact has not been considered; duration of heat and temperature and their impact has not been taken into account and other parameters of modified starch have not been considered or discussed, it is felt that the matter has to be remanded back to the original Adjudicating Authority to examine the issue thoroughly once again - if the manufacturing process has not changed and remains the same by conducting fresh chemical examination of the samples. - It is also necessary to examine all the relevant, parameters of plain starch and the modified starch and compare the products manufactured by the respondents with the specifications for plain and modified starch and arrive at a conclusion whether the product manufactured by the respondents is plain starch or modified starch
-
2008 (7) TMI 384 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Excess quantity of raw materials and finished goods – confiscation, fine and penalty - charges were levelled against the Appellants in the show cause notice that the RG-23 A Part-I Register was not properly maintained as all the columns were not filled-in properly and some new columns were added for production of finished goods, dispatch and balance quantity of finished goods – held that - the raw materials were received by the assessee after due discharge of duty, therefore, this cannot come under the category of excisable goods - assessee is neither a producer nor registered person or a registered dealer but merely user of raw material, which cannot be called excisable goods in terms of definition contained in Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 – confiscation of inputs not allowed – confiscation for non accounting of finished goods upheld – redemption fine and penalty reduced.
-
2008 (7) TMI 383 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cenvat Credit – Transfer of Credit – Rule 10 – no input at the time of transfer – Held that - in this case, the input as such or in progress, has not available as the input has already been put to use, the same has been verified and the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise satisfied about the genuineness of the same. In those circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal is in accordance with the requirement of the statute and the interpretation of the provision by the Department that there must be a transfer of input even if it is not available is extraneous to the statutory provision – transfer of credit upheld.
-
2008 (7) TMI 381 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Power of settlement commission – power to rectify mistake – error apparent on record – held that - Commission is justified in saying that once certain amounts are settled as being liable to tax after allowing or disallowing certain benefits, the proceedings attained finality and cannot be re-opened so as to take a different view of the matter on the basis of alleged error apparent on record. Same is the position in relation to the factum of not granting immunity from prosecution - the petition does not merit acceptance and is, accordingly, rejected
-
2008 (7) TMI 377 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Cenvat Credit – transitional credit under rule 10 – Conversion of DTA unit into EOU - The original authority had denied Cenvat credit balance of Rs. 11,07,017/- as there was no stock on 19-11-04 of inputs received by GTN during 6-9-04 to 18-11-04 – Held that - As regards issue at (i), we find that as held in Order-in-Appeal No. 92/06, Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not prohibit availing by EOU of the balance credit at the time of conversion of DTA. Rule 10 of CCR 04 dealt with transitional credit in situations such as shifting of factory or change in ownership or sale, merger or amalgamation or lease. – Credit allowed to be transferred.
-
2008 (7) TMI 376 - AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT
Demand and Recovery – Clandestine Removal - the Tribunal has after appreciating the evidence on record arrived at certain findings of fact. The reasons stated in the impugned orders are in consonance with the evidence on record. Considering the contents of the letter of the Broker, in conjunction with the other evidence on record, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there is clandestine removal of goods. Even if it were possible to take another view, that by itself would be no ground for intervention by this Court.
............
|
