|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 546 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 1772 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT Credit - input services - group insurance service - outdoor catering service - club membership service - travel agent service - scope of Exclusion Clause in the definition of Input Service - Held that:- The exclusion clause is for personal use of the employee. But nowhere it is coming out from the facts of the case that these services has been availed by the appellants for their employee’s personal use. Moreover, the appellant is under statutory obligation to provide group insurance scheme and outdoor catering in their factory for providing outdoor canteen service - said services do not qualify under exclusion clause of Rule 2(l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - credit allowed.
Air travel agent service - Held that:- The said services has been availed by the officials of the appellant for the purchase sale of their goods with regard to their business. Without these services, the appellant cannot manufacture or sell their goods. In that circumstances, on this service, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit - credit allowed.
Club membership service - Held that:- The amount is meagre and the appellant is not contesting the same - credit denied.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1769 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Refund of CENVAT Credit - Whether the Ld. CESTAT was correct in allowing the refund of Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid in respect of raw material procured from DTA Units under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 to the assessee and thereby misinterpreting the said provision? - Held that:- The Tribunal has rightly considered the amount which was not required to be paid and is required to be refunded - there are no substantial question of law arising in this appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1758 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - Held that:- The petitioner has remedy of an appeal under the Excise Act, 1944. It is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to him under the Act - petition dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1755 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - inputs - input services - justification of Rule 8 (3A) - Held that:- The issue decided in the case of Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ujjain v. Vikram Cement Limited [2018 (8) TMI 68 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT], where it was held that An order keeping in abeyance the judgment of a lower Court or authority does not deface the underlying basis of the judgment itself, i.e. its reasoning - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1752 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Excisability - supply and apply contracts which involved both consumption of paints manufactured by the appellant and also application thereof - appellants took a view that excise duty is required to be paid only on that element of cost representing the value of paints and not on the value relating to application of paints.
Held that:- The Bench in appellant own case M/S COROMANDEL PAINTS LTD. VERSUS CCE & CC, VISAKHAPATNAM [2016 (6) TMI 1018 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] has held that since sale of paint is linked to the application part of the paint at the customer’s site, the application is in relation to the goods and therefore, except the value of the labour component for application no other component can be deductible from the sale value for arriving at assessable value.
Penalties u/s 11AC - Held that:- The matter involved interpretational dispute - There is also no allegation that appellant suppressed the methodology adopted by them - penalty not warranted.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1751 - SC ORDER
Valutaion - includibility - insurance charges - Held that:- there are no ground to interfere - The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1745 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CENVAT Credit - input services - Garden Maintenance Service - interpretation of Statute - Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules - scope of inclusive definition of 'input services' - whether garden maintenance service is an "input service", falling under the "input service", an inclusive definition? - Held that:- All the input services used in relation to modernisation, renovation or repairs of a factory, advertisement or sales promotion, security, legal services, etc., are included in the inclusive definition of input services. Requirement of 25% of the green belt is mandatory, for the very purpose of existence and consequently, manufacture of the final product. It is not only the process of manufacture which results in the production of excisable goods, attracting duty, but the input services which are integrally connected with the manufacture of such final products, should also be considered, so as to give effect to the inclusive definition of input services. Such input services may not in all cases, be in or in relation to manufacture of the final product, but they may be integrally connected and that there should be nexus with manufacture.
The garden maintenance service would fall within the definition of "input service", in terms of Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - he Tribunal was not right in denying input service credit availed on garden maintenance service. - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1744 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Reversal of CENVAT Credit - benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed - denial of benefit on the ground that the benefit of N/N. 82/84 is availed and exemption granted, appellant having availed CENVAT credit on common input services is required to reverse an amount equivalent to 6% of the value of the goods - Held that:- Identical issue decided in appellant own case INOX AIR PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST VISAKHAPATNAM [2017 (9) TMI 500 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], where reliance was placed in the case of DHARAMSI MORARJI CHEMICAL CO. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., RAIGAD [2010 (3) TMI 561 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where the very same rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules was invoked, where the Bench has held that the provisions of Rules are not attracted in case in hand where CT-3 certificate has been issued - reversal of CENVAT Credit not required - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1730 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - input services - various insurance policies during the period 01.04.2011 to 31.10.2014 - Held that: - the service tax paid on insurance policies held to be Input Service within the definition of Rule 2 (l) of CCR, 2004, post amendment and accordingly held admissible to credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1727 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - mobile cranes imported in the name of partner of the appellant’s partnership firm when the Bill of Entry was endorsed by the partner in favor of the appellant firm - Held that: - though the crane was imported in the name of the partner, but the same was received and used by the partnership firm i.e. the appellant. The Bill of Entry was also endorsed by the importer (partner) in favor of the appellant - the payment is not the criteria for taking the cenvat credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1725 - CESTAT DELHI
CENVAT credit - input services - telephone services - insurance services - Held that: - telephone service is an essential part of manufacturing activity and accordingly, the appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on telephone service - credit allowed.
Insurance services - marine specific voyage - insurance of finished goods after place of removal - Held that: - The insurance policy taken for marine specific voyage and insurance for finished goods after place of removal have been excluded from the definition of input in terms of Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 1.4.2011 - credit not allowed.
Group insurance for employees - group gratuity scheme - Held that: - on group insurance for employees and group gratuity scheme the insurance taken on these has not been specifically excluded from the definition of input services with effect from 1.4.2011 - credit allowed.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1723 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification - KRISHNA THULASI HAIR TONIC - whether the product is ayurvedic medicated hair oil and falls under the chapter 3003.20 or would fall under the sub-heading 3305? - Held that: - it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) has examined and discussed the ingredients and brought the same under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1986. As per the description of the product under consideration, it was meant for the dandruff, premature graying and split ends can be cured. The Drug Controller and Licensing Authority has considered the same as Ayurvedic medicine - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1722 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that: - As the brand name used by M/s.Bhamber Udyog is ‘HI BHAMBER’ and by the appellant is ‘BHAMBER 2015’ are not similar, in that circumstance, it cannot be said that appellant is using the brand name of another person - appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption N/N. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1675 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Restoration of appeal - Condonation of delay - Held that: - Before you doubt the bonafides of a litigant and term the version as insufficient for condoning the delay, a Court of law like a Tribunal must find out from its own record atleast any contrary version of the Revenue. If there is no version of the Revenue contravening this factual position, or is any conduct attributable as negligent can be culled out during the course of the proceedings otherwise, then, the Tribunal in its over enthusiasm, and possibly obsessed by disposal mania, decide appeals pending before it in this casual and light hearted manner. Courts of Law are not set up for mere disposal of cases. Courts of Law are established for adjudication of cases, particularly appeals so as to render justice to parties in accordance with law.
Appeal restored to its file for adjudication - petition allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1674 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Whether Appellate Tribunal was justified in not condoning the delay in filing the Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal without appreciating that reason given by the Appellant was justified and there was no mala fide reasons or dilatory tactics involved in causing the delay?
Held that: - the Tribunal could not have faulted the assesses. The assesses acted bonafide and under legal advise. There was nothing intentional about the act attributed to the appellants-assesses. Thus there was no gross negligence, utter callousness or malafides and the delay in filing the appeal was properly explained. In these circumstances the liberal principles should have been applied to condone the delay.
Delay is condoned - the appeal shall stands restored to the file of the Tribunal and to be decided on merits.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1673 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Reversal of cenvat credit - Sale of Carbon Di Oxide (Co2) without payment of duty - case of appellant is that they are not engaged in the manufacture of Carbon Di Oxide (Co2) inasmuch as the same came into existence as a byproduct during the course of manufacture of Denatured Spirit - Held that: - Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2014 (5) TMI 253 - SUPREME COURT], laying down that unintended byproduct, which emerge during the course of manufacture of the final product, would not call for payment of any particular percentage of the value of the same in terms of erstwhile Rule 57CC - the present provision of Rule 6(3) are pari metere to Rule 57CC of erstwhile Central Excise Rule and as such, ratio of law declared in the said decisions would fully apply - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1672 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - Construction Service - Held that: - on perusal of which it is noticed they are for repair of plant and building. It cannot be said that the repairs of the plant are ineligible for Cenvat Credit as definition as Input Service excludes availment of Cenvat Credit in respect of the construction of new factory premises - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1671 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Whether the appellant is required to pay penalty of ₹ 1,70,000/- and interest of ₹ 97,736/- for wrong availment of Cenvat credit of ₹ 17,97,052/- which was later reversed by them voluntarily before being pointed out by the department?
Held that: - admittedly the appellant had initially availed Cenvat credit twice on the same input invoice which they later reversed voluntarily before being pointed out by the department. Also, they have paid the interest of ₹ 97,736/- being pointed out by the audit department. When the entire amount of credit was reversed by the appellant before being pointed out by the department alongwith interest, therefore, imposition of penalty equal to the credit availed is untenable in law - appeal allowed in part.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1670 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - price variation clause - unjust enrichment - verification of report from Railways is required on the credit notes submitted by the appellant - Held that: - this exercise is to be carried out by the adjudicating authority for sanction of refund after ascertaining the fact whether the incidence of duty has been passed on or otherwise. Therefore, no purpose will be served to keep the matter pending with this Tribunal - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority with a direction that the adjudicating authority shall ascertain the fact - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1669 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of CENVAT credit and penalty paid during the course of adjudication/appellate proceedings - denial on the ground of Time Limitation - Section 11B of CEA, 1944 - Held that: - the order of the Tribunal was passed on 11.05.2012 and communicated to the appellant on 14.06.2012. The appellant thereafter wrote a letter to the department to re-credit/refund of the amount deposited during the course of proceedings before various forums. Undisputedly in response to the said claim, the department directed the appellant to file it under the proper proforma - the contention that the claim filed second time in proper proforma which was initially returned by the department, would be barred by limitation, is not tenable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
