|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 470 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 826 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - duty paying documents - supplementary invoices issued by the service provider - Held that: - it cannot be said that prior to 01.04.2011, the appellant was not entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on the strength of supplementary invoices issued by the service provider - the demand confirmed on account of denial of Cenvat Credit on the strength of supplementary invoices is set aside - matter remitted back (for part of the demand) for verification purposes to the Adjudicating Authority is confirmed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 825 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - molasses which has been used for manufacturing of rectify spirit which was ultimately used for manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) - classification declaration under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 - Held that: - there was no stay order for implementation to said Final Order dated 07.12.2001 and, therefore, the said Order-in-Original dated 06.01.2003 was sustainable. - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 824 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - molasses which has been used for manufacturing of rectify spirit which was ultimately used for manufacture of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) - classification declaration under Rule 173-B of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 - Held that: - the reference made to the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 08.02.2017 wherein the Reference No. 02/2001 filed by the Revenue has been dismissed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 823 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - the matter was decided in favor of assessee but was sent back for verification of the documents - Held that: - It is seen that the appellate authority has rightly observed that inasmuch as the first order of Commissioner(Appeals) was in favour of the assessee, on merits, and it was remanded only for verification of documents, it was not open to the original adjudicating authority to reject the claim again on merits - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 822 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - job-worker - credit on the strength of ISD invoices issued by the principal supplier of input - Held that: - on the identical facts in the case of Ruby Confectionery Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (9) TMI 781 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] the demand has been dropped on limitation.
Since the fact in the present case also absolutely identical. The demand is not sustainable on time bar therefore the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 821 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Adjustment of Outstanding amount against rebate claims - pre-deposit - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that: - Admittedly, the appellant has made the pre-deposit and the appeals are pending disposal before this Tribunal. In these circumstances, the amount confirmed by the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 are in dispute, therefore, during the pendency of the appeal filed by the appellant, the same cannot be adjusted against the rebate claim.
The dues against the order dated 31.5.2010 and 20.1.2011 cannot be adjusted against the rebate claim filed by the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 820 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Benefit of N/N. 15/2012 - appellant had supplied 690 vehicles as ambulances to the Government of Maharashtra - Penalty - Held that: - the vehicle cannot be used other than the ambulances after the fitment. Moreover, ambulances were supplied to the Government of Maharashtra. So, there is no chance of misuse of the vehicles - Fitment of accessories have already been done as per the requirement of the exemption list - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 767 - TELANGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy - power of review - Whether the decisions of this Court in M/s. RESOLUTE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. V/s. UNION OF INDIA 2015 (319) ELT 51 (AP) and STAR ENTERPRISES V/s. JOINT COMMISSIONER, GUNTUR , [2015 (4) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] require reconsideration?
Held that: - the Constitutional power of judicial review vesting in this Court under Article 226 cannot be whittled down or be made subject to statutory restrictions and parameters prescribed in the context of the remedies provided thereunder. It is only by way of self-imposed restraints that this Court sometimes refuses to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a given case.
Ultimately, what would weigh with this Court is whether gross injustice would result from non-consideration of the challenge sought to be laid against the Order-in-Original. It is for the Court to decide, on the facts of each individual case, as to whether it should entertain the writ petition or not and this discretion cannot be shackled at this stage by laying down any straightjacket formula or conditions.
The reference is answered holding that the decisions in M/s. RESOLUTE ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. and STAR ENTERPRISES do not constitute good law. A writ petition would lie against an Order-in-Original, against which an appeal was filed and dismissed as time-barred or no appeal had been preferred as it would have been time-barred, provided sufficient grounds are made out warranting exercise of the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petitions shall be placed before the appropriate Court for further consideration on merits - reference disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 766 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - the goods cleared by Unit-I (100% EOU) to Unit-II (DTA) were undervalued - Some goods were cleared clandestinely without payment of duty from Unit-I to Unit-II.
Undervaluation - entire basis for rejecting the transaction value at which goods were cleared from appellant to Unit-II is the relationship between them - Held that: - Merely because the two units are related persons, the same would not ipso facto be the ground for rejecting the transaction value. Rule 3(3)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 specifically provides that where the buyer and seller are related, the transaction value shall be accepted provided that the examination of the circumstances of the sale of the imported goods indicate that the relationship did not influence the price - The comparison of values can only be made in respect of consignments which compares in terms of identity of the goods as well as the quantity of the transaction. Hence, this comparison is not a valid basis for rejecting the transaction value.
Clandestine removal - Held that: - there is no corroborative evidence on record to substantiate the stand of the Department that the goods reflected in the diary titled as “MONARK” were clandestinely cleared. The Department also has not carried out investigation regarding the purchase of extra raw material required for manufacture of such additional quantity of Unit-I. During the verification of record at Unit-I and Unit-II, no discrepancies have been noticed in respect of quantity of raw material or finished goods vis-a-vis the statutory documents - the charge of clandestine clearance cannot be upheld only on the basis of the seized private record especially in view of the fact that the statements admitting clandestine clearance of such goods stand retracted.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 765 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Exemption under N/N. 12/12-CE(Sl.No.134), as amended by the N/N. 12/13-CE dated 1.3.2013 - manufacture of Henna Powder and Henna Paste - Revenue entertained a view that they are not eligible for exemption for the said products as these are either not Henna Powder or Henna Paste not mixed with any other ingredients - Held that: - we are constrained by the lack of clarity in the proceedings initiated by the Revenue. First of all, when the nature of product is in dispute, it is necessary to have it tested by the competent laboratory to get a clear view. Such tests were done by the Chemical Examiner. Unfortunately, the methodology adopted is apparently not proper. The Standard specified for testing the Henna Powder cannot be applied to paste.
We are constrained that the basic facts of the case have not been found in chromatography test so that the Tribunal will be able to pass an order on legality of the claim of the appellant.
Matter remanded to the Original Authority for a due process to be followed including re-testing of the product manufactured and cleared by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 764 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - HR Steel Plates used for fabricating storage tanks - Held that: - No credit is availed on these storage tanks which are fabricated inside the premises of the appellant-assessee. Storage tanks are specifically mentioned in the definition for capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CCR 2004 - Even otherwise, the storage tanks are essential capital goods which are used by the manufacturer of excisable goods. HR Steel Plates are basic raw material for fabricating such storage tanks - credit on HR Steel Plates allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 763 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine removal - shortages of raw material and finished goods - Held that: - The shortages of the raw material and finished goods appeared either due to reconciliation of accounts as well as descrepancies detected during quarterly checking of stocks. This reconciliation was also informed to the department periodically. No instance has been pointed out by the Revenue to show that the raw materials alleged to have been short found were not received by the Respondent in their factory or the alleged short found raw materials and finished goods were clandestinely removed by the Respondent out of their unit.
In absence of any instance or evidence of clandestine removal, no duty can be demanded on the un-reconciled stocks - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 762 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Cenvat Credit - Suo moto credit taken once again - The case of the department is that after reversal of credit duty, due to availability of invalid documents, appellant on their own should not have taken credit, they should have followed the procedure of Central Excise Act and rules made thereunder - Held that: - There is no specific copy was earmarked in terms of Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing Cenvat Credit. As regard the credit availed on Xerox/extra copies of invoices, credit cannot be denied only on the basis that the invoices are not original.
The purchase of goods made from the foreign/domestic supplier. If all these aspects are found to be correct then merely on the basis of copies, of Cenvatabe documents are other than original copies credit cannot be denied.
Matter remanded to the Original adjudicating authority with clear direction that only on the nature of document prevailing in the present case credit cannot be denied - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 761 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - unjust enrichment - Held that: - discount though passed on after removal of the goods but the same was known as per the agreement between appellant and OMCs, therefore discount was deductible from the assessable value - the excise duty paid on such discount was paid in excess which is prima facie liable to be refunded to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 760 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Clandestine manufacture and removal - Whether the appellants are liable to pay duty according to the electricity power consumed in the manufacture of MS Bars, MS Angles etc? - Held that: - except the statements of the partners/directors, there is no other evidence and for this reason the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings - the finding of the Commissioner is agrred which says that much more evidence is required to establish the clandestine manufacture and removal of the finished goods.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner Versus RA. Castings Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 1302 - Supreme Court of India] has held that the demand only on the basis of electricity consumption cannot be confirmed in absence of any other corroborative evidence.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (3) TMI 759 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of goods - C.I. Roller and separators - whether the C.I. Roller and separators used by the Railway department for transportation, in ‘end unloading rake’ to unload the welded rails measuring more than 13 Mtr length are classifiable under Chapter 84.31 of CETA or under under the Chapter 86 - benefit of N/N. 62/95 dated 1.3.1995 - Held that: - the items disputed being Separators and CI rollers are specifically used by the railways as the same are fitted to the specially designed wagons. As these items falls under Chapter 86 and as such are entitled for full exemption under N/N. 62/95-CE. - So far waste and scrap is concerned under N/N. 89/95 dated 18.5.1995, as the same arise in manufacture of goods which are fully exempt from levy of duty are also held exempt - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 758 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - time limitation - Section 11B of CEA - Held that: - on the insistence of departmental officer appellant reversed the credit on 17-09-2014 only, thereafter refund has arisen, before that there was no occasion of filing any refund as the appellant had availed the credit which was made on 17-09-2014 - appellant’s filing the refund claim within six months is well within the time line as prescribed u/s 11B - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (3) TMI 757 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Penalty - interest - Reversal of CENVAT credit - Held that: - the appellant had reversed CENVAT credit but it was held by the first appellate authority that no documentary evidence to that effect had been provided. The original authority, in order-in-original, acknowledges the reversal of CENVAT credit and, therefore, renders the proceedings for recovery to be a non-starter - penalty not warranted.
Interest - Held that: - interest liability is modified to such extent that the utilization of CENVAT credit before the date of reversal did not fall below the amount so reversed and the interest liability restricted only to such deficits as are evidenced in the CENVAT credit account - Subject to any interest liability remaining consequent upon such ascertainment the impugned order is set aside except to the extent that the amount of CENVAT credit wrongly taken has been reversed and appropriated.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (3) TMI 756 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - case of the department is that appellant are engaged in the trading business also, therefore services on which credit was availed were used commonly in relation to the manufactured goods as well as trading goods - Held that: - when the Ld. Commissioner has allowed the Revenue’s appeal on the ground that no documentary evidence have been produced by the appellant to justify their claim of non availement of credit. In my view in this situation, Ld. Commissioner should have called for documentary evidence or remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification.
Matter needs to be re-considered as regard the claim of the appellant that they have not availed the Cenvat credit in respect of services used for trading activity - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (3) TMI 755 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim for unspent advance deposit lying balance in PLA - rejection on the ground of time limitation - Held that: - It is departmental officers, who were advising the appellant throughout this period and finally advised to file a formal refund claim. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is delay on the part of the appellant in the facts of the present case.
Moreover, the refund is in respect of unspent balance of PLA, it is to be kept in mind that the PLA balance is not duty for the reason that whenever Challan is deposited it is as advance deposit towards PLA and from that amount duty payable is debited, therefore unspent balance is nothing but unutilised advance deposit made by the appellant.
In case of claiming refund of unspent balance of PLA, limitation of one year shall not apply.
Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
............
|
