|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 80410 Records
-
2024 (2) TMI 560 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification of goods - PP FIBC bags - to be classified under Chapter Heading 3923 2990 or under 6305 3200? - undervaluation with an intention to evade payment of duty - period from February 2009 to July 2009 - HELD THAT:- With regard to classification, this Bench has already taken a view in the case of M/s. Big Bags Inda (P) Ltd. [2023 (6) TMI 1361 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it has been clearly held that items PP FIBC bags are rightly classifiable under Chapter 6305 3200.
The demand of Rs.83,96,616/- along with interest and penalty is set aside - appellant has not disputed the issue of undervaluation and therefore, the demand of Rs.1,80,403/- along with interest and penalty is upheld.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2024 (2) TMI 499 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Determination/calculation of deduction - deduction on equalized basis - price declaration in terms of Rule 173C of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 - HELD THAT:- This Bench of the Tribunal and also the Principal Bench, New Delhi have decided the issue in favour of the appellants in their own case. Commissioner (Appeals) vide OIA dated 26.11.2015 has relied upon CBEC Circular, No. 20/90-CX-1 dated 20.08.1990, which clarified that Assessees who intend to deduct equalized sales taxes, octroi etc. from the cum duty price may be permitted to do so on the condition that such deductions are substantiated, from time to time, on the basis of information available in records regarding the actual amounts paid as taxes, octroi, etc. As long as the assessable values claimed are correct and are not manipulated in order to avoid duty, it is felt that the assessing authorities may allow deductions on account of sales tax, octroi etc.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 915 - SUPREME COURT] has validated the above circular even in the new valuation regime and observed the measure of the levy contemplated in Section 4 of the Act will not be controlled by the nature of the levy. So long a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy both Section 3 and 4 would operate in their respective fields.
Both the appeals are allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 498 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
100% EOU - method of valuation - applicability of section 4A of the Central Excise Act (CEA) 1944 - removal (of instant coffee) to institution or not - clearance of excisable goods only in bulk/pouches or tins to their C&F agents, who in turn sell the same in bulk to institutions for consumption or for use in other products - time limitation - intent to evade - HELD THAT:- This is a case where depending on the nature of packet size, the applicability of Sec 4A would have to be determined. If the sale is to the institution directly, Sec 4A would not be applicable. However, when the sale is through C&F agent, the question is whether it could be covered within the ambit of Sec 4A or otherwise. From the submissions made, it is obvious that C&F agents were only acting as freight and forwarder and the goods were all along meant for institutional buyers only. Therefore, this transaction could be considered in the nature of institutional sale in terms of explanation to the Rules. There is nothing contrary on record to prove that these goods were not meant for institutional buyers or there was any resale by such buyers. Therefore, the goods would be covered under the exemption. Similarly, for packet sizes of less than 10gm also Sec 4A would not be applicable.
For small packets cleared in bulk, in a packed condition, the Appellants have relied on the judgment of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT VERSUS M/S MAKSON CONFECTIONERY PVT. LTD. [2010 (9) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT], whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal holding that a package containing about 100 or more individual pieces of an article like éclairs brand chocolate, each weighing 5.5gm, would qualify for exemption under Rule 34 of Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules. Therefore, relying on this ratio, even if the instant coffee of pouches less than 10gm were cleared in bulk and not meant for retail sale, it would be exempted under Rule 34 and therefore, will not attract Sec 4A of Central Excise Act 1944.
Time Limitation - no intent to evade - HELD THAT:- The element of intention to evade is clearly missing. It is evidently a case of interpretation where they were under the impression that despite having C&F agents involved in transaction to the institutional buyers, they were still not covered within the ambit of Sec 4A. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the department has not been able to establish the grounds for which extended period can be invoked.
There was no requirement for the Appellants to follow Sec 4A for determining the duty for the payment of Central Excise Duty on the goods cleared to DTA - the Impugned Order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 497 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of personal penalty on the director under Rule 26 of CER - short payment of duty - appellant is a co-noticee and the main noticee i.e. Company M/s. Span Nihon Kohden Diagnostics Private Limited has settled their case under SVLDR Scheme - HELD THAT:- The penalty on the appellant being the director of the company was imposed under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 in connection with the case of short payment of duty by M/s. Span Nihon Kohden Diagnostics Private Limited. It is found that the case against the main notice i.e., the company is related to valuation of the goods. The allegation against the company is that the company has not paid the duty correctly and the goods were sold to the related person.
The issue of valuation is based on the strict interpretation of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the rules made thereunder. However, the appellant under a belief that since the goods are sold, duty is paid on the transaction value, for the clearance of goods proper invoices were raised, therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant’s company. The case is based on only interpretation of valuation provision of Central Excise. Therefore, it cannot be said that the director of the company has any mala fide intention. In this fact, the personal penalty on the director is not correct and legal.
The penalty under Rule 26 is set aside and appeal is allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 496 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Levy of special additional duty (SAD) - DTA clearance from 100% EOU when the goods were cleared as a stock transfer to their own unit - case of the department is that since the appellant have cleared their goods to their own unit, they have not paid the VAT/Sales Tax which was construed by the department as exempted from VAT/Sales Tax - Applicability of exemption N/N. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 (Sr. No. 1) - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in various decisions has taken a consistent view that the stock transfer from EOU to their other unit is not falling under category of sale. The said supplier will not be treated as exempted from payment of VAT/ Service Tax. Therefore, there is no violation of condition of Notification 23/2003-CE - reliance can be placed in Micro Inks [2014 (2) TMI 207 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], VVF Ltd. [2014 (2) TMI 922 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and Sti Industries [2014 (12) TMI 1130 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD].
The demand of SAD confirmed by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable - Hence, the impugned order is set aside - Appeals are allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 436 - SC ORDER
Condonation of gross delay of 334 days in filing this appeal - Sufficient reason for delay or not - Appeal against the order of CESTAT in M/S. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. AND NIRAJ CHANDRA VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II [2022 (11) TMI 1444 - CESTAT MUMBAI] setting aside the demand raised on the ground of Undervaluation, Clandestine removal etc. - HELD THAT:- The reasons cited for condonation of delay are not sufficient in law so as to condone the delay - In the circumstances, the application seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 435 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation - inclusion of value of free material supplied by the principal manufacturer for the purpose of job work by the respondent on behalf of the supplier of the material or not - HELD THAT:- On the close scrutiny of the order it is found that the learned Adjudicating Authority has assumed that the principal manufacturer has discharged the duty on the total value of the finished product cleared by the principal manufacturer. However, no verification in this regard was made by the Adjudicating Authority.
Since the INTERNATIONAL AUTO LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BIHAR [2005 (3) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT] case is solely based on the fact that the principal manufacturer has adjusted the duty while clearing the final product but in absence of said fact on record in the present case, reliance placed on International Auto Ltd only would not be proper.
Accordingly, for applying the ratio of International Auto Ltd the fact needs to be verified that whether the principal manufacturer has paid the duty on the total value of the final product including the value of the material supplied by the principal manufacturer to the job worker in the present case. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order.
Appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.
-
2024 (2) TMI 434 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund of excess central excise duty than due - order crediting the sum to Consumer Welfare Fund not passed - HELD THAT:- It is found from the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 11B of CEA that there are only two options with the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner if he/she finds that the refund is due, then either to credit the said sum to Consumer Welfare Fund or pay it to the assessee, i.e. the claimant. It is noted that the learned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner has not passed an order crediting the said sum to Consumer Welfare Fund. Therefore, the only option left under the said provision of the Act is to pay the same to the claimant.
Since Revenue has rejected refund claim after finding that the said sum was paid in excess of due, it is noted that there is no such provision in Section 11B to reject the claim of refund when it is found that the duty paid is in excess of due duty and, therefore, the impugned order is erroneous - in the present case, since the sum was not credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund, under the said provisions of Section 11B ibid, the only other option is to pay the same to the claimant who is presently the appellant in this case.
The Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandrapur Division, is directed to pay refund of the claimed amount to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the appellant to the said Assistant/Deputy Commissioner - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 433 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of penalty u/r 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - clandestine removal - allegation based on certain printouts and private records seized from the premises of the company for the period 01.04.2006 to 07.06.2007 - No corroborative evidences - HELD THAT:- It is a fact that investigation has been done after resigning of the Directors from the company. No corroborative evidence has been produced by Revenue showing that the appellants were actively involved in the clandestine removal of the goods and without specifically assigning the reasons that the appellants were involved in the clandestine removal of the goods, penalty cannot be imposed, as held by this Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MEERUT VERSUS RAKESH SINGHAL [2006 (6) TMI 407 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI].
Thus, penalty under Rule 26 cannot be imposed on the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned order qua imposing Rs.10.00 Lakhs each on both the appellants is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 432 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Clandestine clearance - imposition of penalty - demand raised against the appellants on the basis of alleged three parallel invoices and some rough papers seized during the course of investigation and statements of the employees of the appellants - opportunity of cross-examination not granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In this case, the case has been made out on the basis of rough papers seized during the course of investigation, which were in the possession of the employees of the appellants, who made inculpatory statement at the time of seizure of the documents. But, the Managing Director has controverted the statement made by the employees. Moreover, three parallel invoices on the basis of which demand has been confirmed against the appellants were not examined. Neither an investigation was made with the buyers mentioned in those parallel invoices nor any investigation was made with the transporters. No effort was made to find out, who is the author of those invoices. In the absence of any corroboration to that effect, the demand is not sustainable. Moreover, the cross-examination of the employees were not granted to the appellants which is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in terms of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act.
Same view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA-II [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it has been held that denial of cross-examination is in violation of principles of natural justice when the statement of that person has been relied upon to allege against the assessee.
Further, without corroboration of the corroborative evidence, the demand cannot be raised against the appellant when appellant has denied the said charge during the course of investigation - this Tribunal in the case of SKV. CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PONDICHERRY [2005 (5) TMI 221 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] held that mere factum of two set of invoices is not sufficient to prove the charge of clandestine removal in the absence of positive evidence with regard to the same.
Admittedly in the case at hand no investigation was conducted at the end of the buyers mentioned in the invoices and transporter of the goods. In the absence of the same, the demand cannot be raised against the appellants - the impugned demand raised against the main appellant and penalty imposed on both the appellants set aside.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 431 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine removal - Tar Catcher - demand on the basis statements of parties/buyers, one supplier of raw material, and one director of the appellant - admissible evidence or not - HELD THAT:- The allegation of clandestine production and removal are required to be arrived at on the basis of positive and tangible evidences including the evidences relating to procurement of raw-materials, conversion of the same to final products, clearances of the same and identification of the buyers and receipt of unaccounted cash etc. It has been the ratio of various decisions of the higher courts that mere entries in the private records, do not, ipso facto, lead to the allegation of clandestine removal unless there is corroborative evidence to that effect from independent sources - It is well settled that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be made on the basis of positive and tangible evidence, the same being quasi-criminal in nature. The Revenue has miserably failed to produce corroborative evidence on records so as to substantiate the charges of clandestine removal. In the absence of corroborative evidence, in the present case “the charge of clandestine clearance” cannot be levelled against the appellant.
The adjudicating authority has not followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act for placing reliance on the statements of said witnesses - The provisions of Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is very clear and by now, it is well-settled legal position that the Adjudicating Authority, if he intends to rely on the contents of any statement recorded under the Central Excise Act, 1944, then the procedure, as prescribed under Section 9D, has to be followed scrupulously.
In the present case, it is found that the statements were relied upon as corroborative evidences and the cross-examination of witnesses who made such statements was denied without valid ground. It is found that, the admissibility of these evidences is legally not sustainable, and the same cannot be the basis for confirmation of duty on the goods allegedly manufactured and cleared by the appellant.
It is observed that in the present case also the goods were lying within the appellant’s factory. There was no evidence on record to show that there was any attempt to remove those goods clandestinely without payment of duty - the goods in question were not liable to confiscation. Accordingly, the confiscation of the goods set aside - the impugned orders cannot be sustained - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 430 - CESTAT KOLKATA
SSI Exemption - Determination of turnover / value of first clarence - Eligibility for concessional rate of duty as provided in the Notification 9/2000 - whether the value of clearances made by paying duty at the normal rate is to be included or not for the purpose of computing the first value of clearances of 100 lakhs while allowing the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per Notification 9/2000, during a financial year? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant is a SSI unit availed the benefit of the Notification 9/2000, which prescribes concessional rate of duty based on a slab rate basis upto the first clearances value of Rs.100 lakhs, with Cenvat facility. This Notification is not automatic for a SSI Unit and the SSI Unit has to exercise the option to avail this exemption. Once exercised at any time during a financial year, the option could not be withdrawn during the remaining part of the financial year.
It is observed that during the Financial Year 2000-01, the Appellant has opted for the benefit of this Notification and never opted out of the Notification during the Financial Year 2000-01. Thus, they would be entitled for the benefit of concessional rate of duty till they cross the value of clearances upto Rs.100 lakhs, during the Financial Year 2000-01. This value is to be computed by taking into account only the value of goods wherein the benefit of concessional rate has been availed.
The demand of duty along with interest confirmed in the impugned order is not sustainable. Since the demand of duty is not sustainable, the question of imposing penalty does not arise - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 429 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Interest on delayed payment of oil cess under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra as the liability of interest on belated payment of Oil Cess has already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E. & S.T., DIBRUGARH VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. [2017 (3) TMI 1620 - CESTAT KOLKATA] which was affirmed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION [2018 (6) TMI 1485 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]. In this case, this Tribunal has held that Section 15(4) of the OID Act does not provide for payment of interest and accordingly decided the issue against the department.
It is held that no interest payable on delayed payment of oil cess under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as Section 15(4) of the OID Act does not provide for payment of interest - there are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal filed by revenue is dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 369 - SC ORDER
Classification of Savoury Oats / Silk Oats - Following the judgment of Supreme Court [2015 (4) TMI 356 - SUPREME COURT], the CESTAT held that, The product Savoury Oats / Silk Oats merit classification under CETH 1104 12 00 and not under 1904 20 00 as determined by the authorities below. - While challenging the decision of CESTAT, department sought review of impugned decision. - HELD THAT:- Looking into the findings of fact, this is not a case in which the said prayer can be considered.
The appeals are dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 368 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of the CVD and SAD as the appellant did not avail Cenvat Credit - The appellant imported capital goods under EPCG scheme. As export obligation could not be fulfilled, the appellant paid Customs duties viz., BCD, CVD and SAD along with interest thereon - Rejection on the ground that the import conditions were not fulfilled - HELD THAT:- CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 includes capital goods in the definition of ‘inputs’. The reason and legal provisions why the learned Commissioner (Appeals) came to the conclusion that duty paid on excisable goods which are inputs alone are eligible and duty paid on capital goods cannot be refunded, is not discussed and is hence not clear. It is also noted that the Original Authority had not disputed the eligibility to CENVAT credit for the capital goods under CCR,2004. The impugned order is hence based on a new ground. A rounded examination of the issue has not been done. The reasons given by the Original Authority and the judgment of M/S. SERVO PACKAGING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY [2020 (2) TMI 353 - CESTAT CHENNAI]] do not form a part of the impugned order into which the OIO has merged.
There are no legal grounds in the impugned order to have rejected the claim for refund. The appellant on the other hand has made out a strong case in their favour - appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 367 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Cash Refund of Customs Duty / CVD - appellant could not avail the Cenat Credit - Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether such matters of cash refund claimed under Section 142(3) could be decided by this Tribunal was before the Larger Bench in the case of M/S. BOSCH ELECTRICAL DRIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX, CHENNAI [2023 (12) TMI 1145 - CESTAT CHENNAI-LB], decided by the Larger Bench on 21.12.2023. The Larger Bench had concluded that the CESTAT has the jurisdiction to take up the Appeals of such nature - the LB decision in the case of Bosch Electricals would be squarely applicable to the present appeals.
This makes it clear that the only recourse available to the assessee who pay the Service Tax, Excise Duty in the form of CVD + SAD or IGST or Excise Duty subsequently after 01.07.2017, is to get the refund in terms of Section 142(3) of the CGST Act 2017.
So far as the case law cited by the Learned AR in respect of M/S. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI II [2022 (5) TMI 394 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S. SERVO PACKAGING LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PUDUCHERRY [2020 (2) TMI 353 - CESTAT CHENNAI], Chennai Bench is concerned, in both these cases the decisions were given prior to the Larger Bench taking its clear view on this issue. Since the Larger Bench had taken the view that the only recourse available to the appellant is to get the cash refund in terms of Section 142(3) to claim cash refund, these two case laws are not applicable presently.
Appeal allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 366 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Rejection of abatement claimed by the appellant under Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - production has taken place during the period of closure or not - whether the appellant is eligible to claim the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, as provided under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant themselves admitted that they could not fulfill all the conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules to avail the abatement. The Appellant explained the reasons for not submitting the Meter reading every time they closed the production and gave the intimation letter to the concerned authorities. The Appellant submits that they could not produce the reading of Electricity Meter every time they closed the production as the Meter room was sealed and fully kept under the control of West Bengal State Electricity Board - the reason given by the Appellant is not convincing.
It is found that the Appellant claimed the abatement for 188 days at various periods of intervals during the period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. The first period for which abatement sought was for a period of 24 days from 01/10/97 to 24/10/97. This means that after closure of the production for 24 days, the Appellant had commenced their production on 25/10/97. For production of goods from 25/10/97 onwards, they would have either used the electricity provided by the state electricity board or used other source of power from generating sets. If the electricity connection is given again on 25/10/97, they could have easily informed the department about the meter reading at the time of reopening the meters. If the appellant has used other source of power for production, then they should have produced those evidences to the department to substantiate their claim that during the period of closure claimed by them they have not used the other source of power for producing the goods, to claim the abatement. The Appellant has produced neither of the above to convince the department that no production has taken place during the periods of closure as claimed by them.
It is not the case of the Appellant that they have continuously closed the production during the period from 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000. They have been closing and restarting the production on various intervals. Every time they closed or re-started the production, the Appellant has not made any effort to submit the Electricity Meter reading. If the Electricity Meter was continuously sealed for the entire period from period 01.10.1997 to 08.02.2000, then the Appellant should have intimated the other source of power used for production during re-start of the production at various periods of intervals - the Appellant has not fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in Rule 96 ZO(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 to claim the abatements - the Appellant are not entitled to claim the abatement for the 188 days as claimed by them, as they have not fulfilled all conditions as prescribed under Rule 96ZO(20 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The impugned order passed by the Commissioner is upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 303 - SC ORDER
Maintainability of appeal - monetary amount limit involved in the appeal - Exemption from duty nder N/N. 6/2002-CE - CESTAT held that, it is not open for the Central Excise authority to overrule the certificate issued by a competent a public authority - HELD THAT:- This appeal has to be dismissed on the ground of low tax effect as being covered by the Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
This Civil Appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 302 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reversal of proportionate CENVAT credit - generation of electricity - CENVAT credit of Counterveiling Duty (CVD) on import of Coal - quantum of power wheeled out to sister units - HELD THAT:- The narration of facts as captured in paragraphs 1 and 7 of the judgment in Maruti Suzuki [2009 (8) TMI 14 - SUPREME COURT] is to the effect that the supply of electricity in that case was to sister concerns, vendors and third parties, and at cost. Thus, the Court was concerned with the factual scenario where the power was sold to other units and whether, in such circumstances, such sale would qualify for the claim of CENVAT credit.
In the present case, the electricity has not been sold but has been supplied though wheeling by TANGEDCO to sister units located elsewhere. All units are engaged in manufacture/grinding of cement and form part of the same group of companies. They admittedly hold separate licenses for manufacture and are independent assessees - the facts that the power in this case has not been sold for consideration and has only been shared with the sister units will be a relevant consideration.
Importantly, a distinction has been envisaged between the goods used 'in the factory' by the 'manufacturer of the final product' and the goods used for 'generation of power'. While the former insists that the goods must be used 'in the factory', there is no stipulation of place as regards the goods in clause (iii). Therefore, there are merit in the position that electricity captively generated is an input, wherever used by the assessee concerned. The use of the term ‘captive’ is, in our view a qualification of the location where it is generated and not of the location where it is used.
The appellant must succeed on the specific fact pattern as arising in this appeals. These appeals are allowed.
-
2024 (2) TMI 301 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - Constitutional Validity of Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - paragraph 3(b) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) dated 18.06.2012 enclosed as Annexure-B prescribing a time limit for claiming refund of cenvat credit - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the returns filed by the assessee have been accepted - However, the question in this appeal is with regard to the rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation. In MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], this Court has held that Section 11B is not applicable. The Commissioner (Appeals), as also the CESTAT have not returned any finding with regard to applicability of empowerment. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration in the hands of the Original Authority.
Petition allowed by way of remand.
............
|
