|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 546 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 1668 - 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 01.06.2012 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.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1667 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Destruction of goods by fire - raw material completely destroyed - time limitation - whether the demand dropped by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on limitation is correct and legal or otherwise? - Held that: - the respondent have given the details for damages, this communication was sufficient for the Revenue to investigate if they deemed fit to find out whether there is some more damages of inputs or other goods. However the Revenue has not taken any step to make any enquiry - Merely on the basis of statement given by one of the employee of the respondent to the police the same cannot be taken as gospel truth regarding the actual quantum of damage. The show-cause notice was issued almost after 5 years therefore there is no suppression of fact on the part of the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1666 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - correction of wrong forwarding of closing balance of CENVAT account was corrected by passing journal voucher, but no document was produced - Held that: - Inadvertently while transferring the closing balance as opening balance on 01.04.2010 the short amount of balance was transferred that too in the accounting records. However, in ER-1 return there is no discrepancy as correct closing balance of CENVAT as on 31.03.2010 was correctly shown as the same amount in the opening balance of April, 2010 in the ER- 1 return of April 2010 - there is only a clerical error while recording the opening balance in the Month of April, 2010. As such this is not a case of wrong availment of credit or excess availment of credit, therefore there is no question of any demand - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1665 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine removal - Ceramics Tiles - whether the appellant had clandestinely manufactured and cleared 44614 boxes of ceramic tiles involving a total duty of ₹ 4,54,929/-? - Held that: - Undisputedly, the allegation of removal of 44614 boxes of ceramic tiles during the period from 05.04.2011 to 16.11.2011, arrived at on the basis of information furnished by the director on the production capacity of the Tiles per day as 6500 boxes. The total quantity of ceramic tiles @ 6500 boxes per day was multiplied to the number of days, to arrive at the total production, during the said period from 05.04.2011 to 16.11.2011. The quantity mentioned in the RG-I Register was compared so as to arrive at the clearance of 44614 boxes being the difference between the recorded figure in RG-I register and the optimum production of 6500 boxes per day - The other evidence that was relied upon in the notice is the statement of Shri Javed Suleman Chania, who alleged to have purchased the ceramic tiles from the appellant manufactured and cleared without payment of duty. The said statement could not stand to the scrutiny of cross examination.
In absence of other corroborative evidences solely on the basis of the director’s statement of production capacity, the allegation of clandestine removal based on theoretical calculation cannot be sustained as held in a series of cases.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1664 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Refund of unutilized CENVAT credit - Rule 5 of CCR 2004 - Held that: - an identical issue has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. CCE [2016 (9) TMI 142 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that The criteria for refund are existence of accumulated credit, insufficient opportunity for utilization thereof and limiting the extent of refund to the proportion that export turnover bears to total turnover - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1663 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Whether the appellant is required to pay penalty for wrong availment of Cenvat credit which was later reversed by them 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 ₹ 1,12,796/- 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 1662 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Entitlement to interest on interest - case of appellant is that the interest does not remain as interest but it is appropriated towards the outstanding dues. Therefore, the contention of the Department that interest amount ₹ 11,73,799/-, earlier allowed would not again attract interest, is unsustainable in law - whether the Appellant is entitled to interest on ₹ 11,73,799/- appropriated earlier against the confirmed demand?
Held that: - The Department even though refunded the said amount of ₹ 11,73,799/-, but declined to pay interest on the same holding that the said amount was earlier sanctioned/allowed to the Appellant as interest to the pre-deposit amount of ₹ 17,43,384/-, hence cannot be considered as principal amount and continues to be interest only - It cannot be denied that had the amount not appropriated, the Appellant would have received the interest amount of ₹ 11,73,799/- along with the principal amount of ₹ 17,43,384/- way back in 1995. Thus, on appropriation the interest is merged with the principle amount. In the result, the Appellant is entitled to interest on the amount of ₹ 11,73,799/-.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1661 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - inputs - material usage variance not used in manufacture of goods - Held that: - there is no provision under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for denial of availment of credit merely on the ground that the assessee has admittedly deployed inputs in excess of the ideal for achieving desired output level The demand for recovery of the credit held to be ineligible by the lower authorities does not have the sanction of law - the tax element here is manufacture and the inefficiency attributed to excessive usage of materials is perforce reflected in an enhanced assessable value on which appropriate duty liability has been discharged - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1660 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - mobile networking service - security agency service - Held that: - It is seen that mobile phone service is a permitted input used in relation to manufacturing activities. The appellant has elaborately demonstrated the nature of mobile networking as a communication system that is essential for monitoring production activities. No flaw can be found in this submission and the availment of credit cannot be denied.
In Castrol India Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (9) TMI 709 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], the Tribunal has held that ‘security agency service’ cannot be alienated from the production process if used in a factory. No evidence to the contrary has been produced by Revenue. The availment of credit of tax paid on procurement of this service cannot be faulted.
Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1659 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Disposal of pending cases - matter in question is pending before the High Court - Transition of Indirect Tax to GST - Held that: - it would be appropriate and prudent to close the files for the purpose of statistics - the appeals along with stay order / interim orders, if any, will continue before the Tribunal and the matters are closed only for the purpose of statistics - appeal disposed off.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1623 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Direction to supply certified copy of the SCN dated 17.10.2012 - case of respondent is that the petitioner in ordinary course ought to have already been served with SCN and the order in original dated 17.10.2012 and 06.01.2017, receptively and as such there is no occasion for the petitioner to have applied again for seeking certified copies of the said documents.
Held that: - Denial of certified copies of the documents cannot be justified specially if the show cause notice and the order in original is in relation to the petitioner itself - the respondent no.2 is directed to supply the certified copies of the SCN dated 17.10.2012 and the order in original dated 06.01.2017 within a week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him - petition allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1613 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - classification of taxable service - Section 35G of the CEA 1944 - Held that: - the dispute as to the classification of services is not maintainable before this Court under Section 35G of the Act - Even otherwise, ordinarily, as per the Litigation Policy following the instructions in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015, the value of the service tax disputed being less than ₹ 10,00,000/-, no appeal is maintainable - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1612 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Excisability - scrap generated in the factory - Revenue by entertaining a view that appellant is required to discharge duty in respect of such unfit/ damage components, raised duty demand for the period December 2011 to September, 2015 - Held that: - the identical issue has come up in assessee own case before the Tribunal M/s Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Bhopal [2017 (12) TMI 1296 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that scrap of paper cannot be considered as a product different from the paper and Mere mentioning in the tariff is not sufficient to attract excise levy - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1611 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Scope of SCN - CENVAT credit - Held that: - there was no proposal in the show-cause notice for denial of CENVAT credit for the period of demand of duty, therefore it was not a case for the Department that whether the CENVAT credit claimed by the appellant is admissible or otherwise - the issue of CENVAT credit being independent is still open for Department to decide - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1610 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - paper and paper board in sheet form - it was revealed that the said goods were sold at a higher price in wholesale trade as compared to the value on which Central Excise duty was paid by the appellant - Held that: - identical issue decided in appellant own case Ballarpur Industries Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur [2018 (1) TMI 162 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that Since, the price of paper reels at the depot at the time of removal was available and the duty had been paid only on that price, there is no short payment of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1609 - CESTAT MUMBAI
SSI exemption - denial of benefit of Job work - denial on the ground that the appellant had not declared that they were doing job-work - Board Circular No.59/88 dated 28/10/88 and 323/39/97-CX dated 14/07/1997 - Held that: - the Commissioner (Appeals) has relied on the circulars issued by the CBEC to grant benefit. It is seen that the said circulars have been issued with reference to the SSI units clearing goods to domestic tariff area and also exporting the goods. The said circular is not applicable to any unit, which is clearing to domestic tariff area only. Thus, the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied on the said circular.
The requirement of declaration under N/N. 214/86, is not a mere facility. The declaration serves the purpose of shifting responsibility on payment of duty from the hob workers to principal manufacturer who undertakes to pay the duty liability in respect of goods. In the absence of the declaration no liability can be fixed on the principal manufacturer.
The appellant had not declared that they were doing job work and availing benefit of Notification in the ER-1 returns. Thus, the charge of mis-declaration is clearly established - the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for redetermination of demand - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1608 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - steel items - welding electrodes - whether the assessee is entitled to steel items used in manufacturing of structures items which are embedded to earth? - Held that: - in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II [2017 (1) TMI 1479 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], this Tribunal has allowed CENVAT credit on the steel items and welding electrodes used in the factory of production for manufacture of excisable goods as inputs as defined in section 2(g) of CCR 2002 - credit allowed.
Welding electrodes - Held that: - the welding electrodes has been used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery which has been ultimately used for manufacturing of final product - credit allowed.
Extended period of limitation - Held that: - there were contrary decisions during that impugned period for availment of Cenvat credit on items in question - extended period not invokable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1607 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
CENVAT credit - inputs, input services and capital goods, which has been gone in manufacture of the de-natured Spirits - Held that: - identical issue came up before this tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Sugar Ltd. [2016 (8) TMI 386 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that ethyl alcohol and rectification spirit are one and the same. Hence,the rectified spirit which is not used for human consumption is nothing but ethyl alcohol and is finding place in tariff item no. 22072000.
Cenvat credit cannot be denied to the appellant on inputs/input services used in manufacturing of sugar and molasses, wherein de-natured Spirits emerges - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1606 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Benefit of N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - Canvass and Tarpaulin - Revenue is of the view that these are the parts and accessories of motor vehicle and appropriately classifiable under heading 8708 which does not have exemption under N/N. 30/2004-CE - Held that: - identical issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of J.S. Fabrics v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur [2014 (12) TMI 232 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein the Tribunal has held that The canvas Tarpaulins, in question, are specially shaped for different model of lorries and though the Department’s contention is that the same are not flat, no evidence in this regard has been produced. In our view, therefore, these Tarpaulin would be correctly classifiable under heading 6306 and not as ‘parts or accessories of motor vehicles’ under heading 8708.
The appellant are entitled for exemption under N/N. 30/2004-CE - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1562 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Benefit of exemption - actual user condition - N/N. 05/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - intended for use in the manufacture of handicrafts and utensils - Held that: - The only condition is to be complied with by the appellant that the goods sold by them and to be intended for use in the manufacture of utensils and handicrafts - Admittedly, as per the invoices issued by the appellant as well as their buyer, the intention is very much clear that the said goods were to be used for manufacture of utensils/handicrafts. The intended use of the said goods has been established by the appellant, in that circumstance, the benefit of the notification cannot be denied.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
