|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 552 Records
-
2006 (12) TMI 446
Status of transferred employees - whether their service conditions were well protected under the Rules governing them in the Parent Department and whether they were permanently transferred to GPVAs or on deputation has been set at rest and it has become final.
Whether it is deputation simpliciter or transfer?
Held thaat:- the expression ’Transfer’ is used in Section 25 loosely. They were actually sent on deputation keeping their lien with their Parent Departments. Once we hold that the respondents were on deputation to Gram Panchayats, the position of deputation in service is well settledthe expression ’Transfer’ is used in Section 25 loosely. They were actually sent on deputation keeping their lien with their Parent Departments. Once we hold that the respondents were on deputation to Gram Panchayats, the position of deputation in service is well settled.
The judgment and order of the Division Bench quashing G.O. dated 19.7.2005, 25.1.2006 and 8.9.2005 the direction that the Tube-well Operators and part-time Tube-well Operators are inextricably connected with the cadre of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari; the direction that the Part-time Tube-well Operators shall be treated as permanent employees are all hereby, set aside.
-
2006 (12) TMI 445
Unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - deposits obtained by the company from its employees/depositors - Genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of the depositors - HELD THAT:- In our view, having not disputed the facts that these persons were ex-employees of the assessee and drawing salaries it has to be implied that depositors possessed creditworthiness to make these deposits. It shall be pertinent here to mention that degree of proof cast on the assessee to prove creditworthiness is not of infallible nature, what is contemplated is that the assessee should be able to prima facie show that depositors had reasonable capacity.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the given case, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has rigidly stuck to the issue of confirmations to overshadow all other material available on record which has not been considered at all. The assessee had furnished before the Assessing Officer whatever evidence was available with it, which in our opinion was sufficient to reasonably discharge primary onus cast on the assessee in terms of section 68. It was for the Assessing Officer to rebut the same on the basis of available record, instead the Assessing Officer had merely picked up non-filing of confirmations as a tool to discard other material and explanations of the assessee. Rejection of the explanations of the assessee is not based on objective considerations but by way of summary rejection. In our view, the assessee having given reasonable and plausible explanations, which have not been found to be wrong or unsatisfactory on any objective consideration, we hold that cash credit in question cannot be added as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed.
Deduction of expenses on research and development u/s 35(2AB) - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 35(2AB) clearly manifests that the assessee has to develop facility which presupposes incurring expenditure in this behalf, application to the prescribed authority, who after following proper procedure will approve the facility or otherwise and the assessee will be entitled to weighted deduction of any and all expenditure so incurred. These words refer back to the facility which is so developed. Consequently, a plain reading clearly indicates that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction on expenditure so incurred by the assessee for development of facility.
A plain and harmonious reading of provision, rule and form clearly suggests that once facility is approved, entire expenditure so incurred on development of “R & D” facility has to be allowed for weighted deduction as provided by section 35(2AB). In our considered view, a plain and simple reading is enough to give meaning of provision. An interpretation is to be applied when there is an ambiguity in the meaning of provisions. In our view there is no such ambiguity here.
Even if we assume that there is any slight doubt in the meaning/language of provision, we have to refer to legislative intent. To boost up “R & D” facility in India, the Legislature provided this provision to encourage the development of the facility by providing deduction of weighted expenditure. Since what is stated to be promoted was development of facility, intention of the Legislature by making the above amendment is very clear that the entire expenditure incurred by the assessee on development of facility, if approved has to be allowed for the purpose of weighted deduction. In our view, legislative intention for bringing the amendment also justifies plain and simple meaning of the section. Thus, we hold that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of entire expenditure incurred for development of in-house “R & D” facility in terms of section 35(2AB) and claim of the assessee shall be allowed. This ground of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2006 (12) TMI 444
Levy of entry tax - compensatory in nature ? - Constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Kerala Tax - seeking for a declaration that Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(i) and Section 3 are discriminatory and ultra vires of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), 246, 265, 286, 301, 304(a), 304(b) - HELD THAT:- We have found that the compensatory character of tax is not self-evident from the Kerala Entry Tax Act. We have extracted the object of the Act which is for augmenting the general revenue by curbing the evasion of sales tax on goods purchased from outside the State, which cannot be characterised as a compensatory levy. This legal position is well settled by the judgment of the apex court in Jindal Stripe Limited's case,[2003 (9) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the court held that the tax imposed for augmenting the general revenue such as sales tax is not compensatory.
Whether the State has discharged the burden of showing that the levy is compensatory by placing materials before the court - In our view, there is absolutely no connection or nexus with the collection of entry tax and its utilisation for the benefit of traders/manufacturers from whom such tax is collected. Affidavit filed is not specific and the State has not been able to establish the nexus between entry tax collected and the benefit conferred upon the person from whom the tax is collected. We also notice, the State is also discriminating between traders who bring goods from outside the State or country to a local area as defined under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 2(1)(d) and person who brings goods from an area within the State to a local area in the State. Facts would indicate that on the introduction of entry tax, manufacturers have opted to purchase raw materials from within the State because they are less costlier since the levy of entry tax has definitely created a tax barrier affecting the free flow of trade, commerce and intercourse, such a tax violates Article 301 of the Constitution and therefore liable to be declared as unconstitutional.
We therefore hold that unless and until State discharges its burden by placing materials before court that payment of compensatory tax is reimbursement/recompense, quantifiable/measurable benefit provided or to be provided to the payers or there is any broad correlation between the entry tax being realised and the services rendered, it cannot sustain levy of entry tax.
We are of the view, State has not discharged its burden by providing quantitative data on the basis of which compensatory tax is sought to be levied and the working test laid down in Automobile Transport's case [1962 (4) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT], Jindal Stainless Ltd's case [2006 (4) TMI 120 - SUPREME COURT] or Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills [2006 (8) TMI 307 - SUPREME COURT] case is not satisfied in these cases for levying entry tax.
On facts we have already held that so far as these cases are concerned, imposition of levy of entry tax is not compensatory in nature. Further, even if the notwithstanding clause is employed to bring in within the ambit of Article 304(b) even then the procedure laid down in the proviso has not been satisfied; nor the element of public interest is established. The State could not prove that the Act imposes only reasonable restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce or intercourse as may be required in public interest. There is nothing to show that the levy was made in public interest and that there is nothing on record to suggest that the levy of entry tax on goods introduced by amendment Act had the prior sanction of the President as required under the proviso to Article 304(b); nor was there anything on record to suggest that before amending the act assent of the President was obtained as contemplated under Article 255 of the Constitution of India. What is placed before us is only a letter from the Government of India in response to the letter of June 1992 sent by the Taxes Department stating that the Government of India have no objection to the introduction of the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Bill 1992 by the State Legislature under Article 304(b) of the Constitution which is not the assent or previous sanction of the President as per the proviso to Article 304 (b) of the Constitution.
We therefore hold that the levy of entry tax on goods imported from other State to the State of Kerala and from abroad is not compensatory in nature since the State Government could not discharge its burden by placing materials before court that payment of levy of entry tax is reimbursement/recompense for the quantifiable/measurable benefit provided or to be provided to the petitioners. The impugned Act imposing entry tax cannot be said to be specifically meant for facilitating trade, commerce and intercourse, but is raised for augmenting the general revenue of the State.
We therefore hold that the demand and collection of entry tax under the Kerala Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1994 is illegal, unauthorised and violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India. Original Petitions are allowed as above and the levy and demand notices issued would stand quashed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 443
Issues:
Applicability of Notification No. 339/86 to the respondent's product 'Infusion set'.
Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the applicability of Notification No. 339/86 to the respondent's product, the 'Infusion set'. The Revenue argues that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits of the notification as the infusion set does not qualify as long-term use as specified. The matter had been previously taken up to the Tribunal, which remanded it to the first appellate authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's contention and set aside the order-in-original. The Revenue contends that the infusion set does not meet the criteria for long-term use as per the notification. On the other hand, the Advocate for the respondent argues that the Commissioner (Appeals) provided a detailed finding that does not warrant interference.
Upon considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the evidence presented by the respondents to support that the infusion sets manufactured by them qualify for long-term use under Notification No. 339/86. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced certificates from various hospitals and medical professionals attesting to the long-term use of the infusion sets. Notably, the Revenue did not present any contradictory evidence to challenge the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).
Based on the detailed analysis and evidence presented, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the respondent regarding the eligibility of the infusion sets for exemption under Notification No. 339/86.
-
2006 (12) TMI 442
Issues:
Rectification of mistake application against the Tribunal's order, violation of principles of natural justice, misapplication of Rule 173-h of Central Excise Rules, failure to consider written submissions, misapplication of legal principles, reliance on irrelevant cases, failure to appreciate settled legal position, review and recall of the order.
Rectification of Mistake Application:
The appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake against the Tribunal's order dated 19-12-2005, alleging that the order was passed without appreciating the facts correctly and without applying the correct legal position. The appellant contended that the order was ex parte and violated the principles of natural justice as specific hearing was not granted. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider their detailed written submissions, leading to a breach of natural justice principles. Additionally, the appellant claimed that the Tribunal misapplied Rule 173-h of the Central Excise Rules to their case, asserting that the rule allows for repair, reprocess, or refine defective goods without constituting manufacturing. The appellant highlighted that the Tribunal's order failed to consider the legal position and evidence presented, warranting a review and recall of the order.
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal's order was in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was passed ex parte without granting a specific hearing despite the appellant's request. The appellant contended that their written submissions were not considered by the Tribunal, leading to a failure to appreciate their defense. The appellant emphasized that the order ignored vital defense submissions and was passed without proper consideration of the appellant's arguments, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice. The appellant sought to quash and set aside the order based on these violations.
Misapplication of Rule 173-h of Central Excise Rules:
The appellant raised concerns regarding the misapplication of Rule 173-h of the Central Excise Rules by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly found the appellant's activity to amount to manufacturing, contrary to the provisions of Rule 173-h. The appellant highlighted that the rule allows for repair, reconditioning, or refining of defective goods without constituting manufacturing, provided the original identity of the goods is maintained. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's misapplication of the rule led to an erroneous conclusion regarding the nature of the appellant's activities, necessitating a correction in the order.
Failure to Consider Written Submissions:
The appellant criticized the Tribunal for failing to consider the written submissions filed by them, which contained settled legal positions and evidence supporting their case. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's oversight in not addressing the written submissions led to material irregularity in the findings. The appellant emphasized that the Tribunal's failure to consider the legal position and evidence presented in the written submissions undermined the appellant's defense and warranted a review of the order.
Reliance on Irrelevant Cases and Failure to Appreciate Settled Legal Position:
The appellant raised concerns about the Tribunal's reliance on irrelevant cases and failure to appreciate the settled legal position in similar matters. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's decision to refer to cases with no direct bearing on the present case, while disregarding directly relevant cases, was improper. The appellant highlighted that the Tribunal's failure to apply the settled legal position, as laid down by higher authorities, led to an erroneous conclusion in the order. The appellant sought to quash and set aside the order based on these grounds.
Review and Recall of the Order:
The Tribunal, considering the appellant's arguments regarding the violations of natural justice and misapplication of legal principles, decided to recall the order dated 19-12-2005 and restore the appeal to its original number. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's reasons for not being able to appear before the Tribunal and deemed it reasonable to grant the request for review and recall of the order. Consequently, the Rectification of Mistake application was allowed, and the order was set aside for further review.
-
2006 (12) TMI 441
Issues: Inclusion of bagging charges of imported fertilizers in the assessable value.
Summary:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-appeal dated 31-7-03 regarding the inclusion of bagging charges of fertilizers imported by the respondent. The Revenue contended that bagging charges should be included in the assessable value of the imported goods as the fertilizers are finally sold to the consumer after bagging. However, the learned Advocate for the respondent argued that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills v. Union of India. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on this judgment and allowed the appeal of the respondent.
Upon considering the submissions and perusing the record, the Tribunal found that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Garden Silk Mills squarely covers the issue. The Tribunal referred to a portion of the Supreme Court's decision which highlighted that the taxable event is reached when the goods reach the customs barriers and the bill of entry for home consumption is filed. Since the bagging of fertilizers is a post-importation activity and the goods have already landed in Indian territory, the charges for bagging could not be included in the assessable value. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed for lacking merit.
-
2006 (12) TMI 440
Issues Involved:
Denial of modvat credit on duty paid inputs due to discontinuation of proforma credit facility.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad was against the order-in-appeal that upheld the original order. Despite the respondent not appearing, the Tribunal heard the arguments of the SDR and reviewed the records. The central issue was the denial of modvat credit on inputs received by the respondent between 20th May to 6th May, 1994, following the discontinuation of the proforma credit facility as per Notification No. 24/94 dated 20-5-94. The respondent sought to transfer the proforma credit to the modvat account. The Tribunal noted that the respondents were indeed eligible for modvat credit on the proforma credit availed during the mentioned period. It emphasized that both proforma credit and modvat credit are beneficial and should not be denied based on technicalities alone. As there was no evidence to suggest that the respondents had not availed both types of credit, the Tribunal found no grounds to reject the credit amount. Consequently, it held that the lower authorities' decisions were in line with established legal principles.
In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it. The judgment highlighted the importance of not denying modvat credit solely on technical grounds and reaffirmed the eligibility of the respondents for such credit based on the proforma credit they had availed. The decision underscored the need to interpret and apply tax laws in a manner that upholds the intended benefits for taxpayers without unjustified denials based on procedural issues.
-
2006 (12) TMI 439
Issues involved:
Whether a show cause notice survives if part of it is held without jurisdiction by the appellate authority.
Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order setting aside the demand and penalty but upholding the confiscation of goods. The central issue was whether a show cause notice remains valid if part of it is deemed without jurisdiction. The appellant relied on the decision in the case of Godrej Soaps v. C.C.E., Mumbai. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to a Larger Bench decision regarding the validity of show cause notices issued for various purposes. The Larger Bench concluded that a show cause notice cannot be segregated into parts; if held without jurisdiction for one purpose, it is invalid in its entirety. The Tribunal upheld this principle, emphasizing that once a show cause notice is void in part, the entire notice is invalid. The Tribunal also highlighted that the issue of penalty and confiscation cannot proceed in the absence of a valid demand of duty.
The Tribunal further discussed the doctrine of merger, stating that once a Tribunal decision is confirmed by the Supreme Court, it settles the law on the disputed issue. The Tribunal referred to the Transcab International case, emphasizing that if a Tribunal decision is not challenged before the Supreme Court, it should not be reconsidered. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decision in the Alcobex Metals case and concluded that if a show cause notice is set aside partly due to jurisdiction issues, confiscation arising from the same notice cannot be upheld.
In conclusion, the Tribunal followed the Larger Bench decision and set aside the order upholding the confiscation of goods. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, in favor of the appellant.
-
2006 (12) TMI 438
Issues: Classification of vacuum circuit breakers under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 u/s 8535 or 8537.
Summary:
The appeal challenged the re-classification of vacuum circuit breakers under chapter heading 8537 by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a circular issued by the Board u/s 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that their products should be classified under sub-heading 8535. The Advocate cited the Tribunal's decision in S & S Power Switchgear Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai-II and emphasized the relevance of HSN Notes in determining classification. On the other hand, the Department relied on the Tribunal's decision in Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CCE, Aurangabad.
Upon review, it was noted that the Board's order, which favored classification under 8537, was issued after the period in question. Citing the majority decision in S & S Power Switchgear, it was concluded that the Board's order under Section 37B applied prospectively. The products were found to align with sub-heading 8535, considering the HSN Explanatory Notes. The previous case cited by the Department was deemed irrelevant as it pertained to different products.
Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, in line with the majority decision in S & S Power Switchgear.
-
2006 (12) TMI 437
Issues:
- Appeal against non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Doctrine of merger application in the case.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Appeal against non-imposition of penalty
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Original dated 3-5-2002, specifically challenging the non-imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents had previously appealed against the same order, leading to the Tribunal setting aside the Order-in-Original. However, the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 7-10-2004, overturned the Tribunal's decision and reinstated the order of the Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the active involvement of respondents in fraudulent activities, leading to the evasion of duty, and deemed the imposition of penalties as warranted. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue against the non-imposition of penalty was dismissed.
Issue 2: Doctrine of merger application
The doctrine of merger was crucial in this case as the Supreme Court's decision restored the Commissioner's original order. The Tribunal recognized that any order passed by them would be legally incorrect, given the merger of their decision with the Supreme Court's order. The doctrine of merger dictates that when a higher court sets aside an order and restores the lower court's decision, the lower court's order stands merged with the higher court's order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as not maintainable based on the doctrine of merger, as the Supreme Court's decision had already reinstated the Commissioner's order. This application of the doctrine ensured legal consistency and adherence to established principles in the case.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of the doctrine of merger in maintaining legal coherence and upholding the decisions of higher courts. The detailed analysis of the issues involved provided clarity on the legal proceedings and the rationale behind dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The case underscored the importance of legal principles and the hierarchical structure of the judicial system in ensuring justice and consistency in legal outcomes.
-
2006 (12) TMI 436
Issues involved: Applicability of time-bar in refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, dealt with the issue of the time limitation for filing a refund claim regarding deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing processed fabric, were availing deemed credit for grey fabric used in their manufacturing process. Due to exporting processed fabric under bond, they could not utilize the deemed credit on grey fabrics and sought a refund as per the proviso to Para 3 of Notification No. 29/96. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned a refund of Rs. 3,74,828/-, but the Revenue appealed, leading to dismissal by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a filing delay beyond six months from the date of export, deemed as a contravention of Notification No. 85/87-C.E.
The appellant's advocate argued that Notification No. 29/96 does not specify a time limit for filing refund claims. The advocate referenced the provision to Para 3 of Notification No. 29/96, emphasizing that no time limitation was prescribed by the Central Government. The advocate cited precedents, including the Tribunal's decision in Gulshan Prints P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat, and the Division Bench decision in Sanghi Textiles Limited, stating that the time limits under Sec. 11B of CEA, 1944, and Notification No. 85/87 would not be applicable to refund of deemed credit.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, found that the appellant's case aligned with the cited precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal. The judgment clarified that the time limits under relevant provisions were not applicable to the refund of deemed credit under Notification No. 29/96, providing relief to the appellants in this case.
-
2006 (12) TMI 435
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Modvat credit based on provisional invoices. The inputs were received, duty paid, and used in manufacturing final products. Rule 57G provisions are clarificatory and in line with Modvat Credit Rules. The appeal was dismissed.
-
2006 (12) TMI 434
Issues: Seeking waiver of pre-deposit under Rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules for goods removed during a specific period. Dispute over reversal of credit due to lack of separate accounts and subsequent notification of goods.
Analysis:
1. The appellant, a PSU Unit, sought waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 19,44,64,354 for goods removed during a specified period. The appellant had only reversed a partial amount as per the order, leading to demands being confirmed, including interest and penalty.
2. The Senior Counsel argued that after the final products were notified, the appellant reversed the credit, but this was rejected due to the absence of separate accounts. Referring to a previous order, the Counsel contended that once credit availed and inputs were reversed as per rules, satisfying the demands was unnecessary. The Counsel asserted the ability to identify the quantity of inputs used in manufacturing the notified goods for reversal, unchallenged by the Revenue.
3. In contrast, the JDR contended that during the period in question, there was no notification regarding the goods in question, and common inputs were used without separate accounts, violating the Rules. Citing a specific case, the JDR argued that subsequent notification of goods would not rectify the non-compliance, emphasizing the importance of maintaining separate accounts.
4. The JDR further relied on precedents where similar situations led to non-reversal of credit due to the absence of separate accounts. The JDR cited cases like CCE, Mumbai v. Raymond Ltd., Binani Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin, and National Information Technologies Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal to support the argument against granting credit without proper compliance.
5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had reversed the credit before the Show Cause Notice was issued upon the notification of goods, with undisputed calculations. The Tribunal opined that despite procedural lapses, the appellant had prima facie satisfied the Rules by reversing the credit before the notice. Consequently, the Tribunal granted full waiver and stayed the recovery, allowing the appeal to proceed without recovery during the pendency of the case. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural compliance but acknowledged the appellant's actions in reversing the credit promptly.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in granting the waiver and stay of recovery based on the compliance with the CENVAT Credit Rules.
-
2006 (12) TMI 433
Issues involved: Interpretation of the term 'input' under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 in the context of grey fabrics; eligibility of grey fabrics for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 35/03.
Summary:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17-6-2005. The appellant, a registered dealer dealing with grey fabrics, sought Cenvat credit under Notification No. 35/03 dated 10th April 2003. The dispute arose as the department contended that man-made grey fabrics were not eligible as inputs for Cenvat credit. The department argued that the grey fabrics did not qualify as inputs under Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
The appellant argued that the term 'input' should be understood in the context of the next user and the credit available. They contended that grey fabrics should be considered as inputs, not finished goods, for the purpose of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal noted that the status of a product as an input or finished product is relative. While grey fabrics are a finished product for the manufacturer, they are inputs for processors. The Tribunal emphasized that the presence of a dealer in the supply chain does not change the nature of the products as inputs.
The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument, ruling that grey fabrics qualify as inputs for Cenvat credit under Notification No. 35/03. The decision highlighted that the notification allows credit for stock with traders and processors. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
*(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)*
-
2006 (12) TMI 432
Issues:
1. Denial of Modvat credit on resin and GI wires.
2. Admissibility of credit on PVC compound.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 177/86 regarding credit on GI wires.
4. Applicability of the Tribunal's order in Arun Auto Spring & Manufacturing v. CCE, Rajkot.
The judgment revolves around the denial of Modvat credit on resin and GI wires. Initially, the Adjudicating authority disallowed the credit on both items, with the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the denial of credit on GI wires and remanding the issue of credit on PVC compound. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court, leading to a remand back to the excise authorities for fresh adjudication. After the remand, the Asstt. Commissioner allowed credit on GI wires, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the current appeal.
Regarding the admissibility of credit on GI wires, the judge noted that the High Court's order encompassed all contentions from the writ petition, contrary to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s interpretation. The judge analyzed Notification No. 177/86, dated 1-3-1986, which allowed deemed credit for GI wires without the need for documents evidencing duty payment. However, the judge highlighted that credit would not be permissible if the inputs were identifiable as non-duty paid or exempted. Notably, an amendment from 20-5-88 specified that credit would not apply to inputs clearly recognized as non-duty paid or wholly exempted. Citing the case of Arun Auto Spring & Manufacturing v. CCE, Rajkot, the judge emphasized the distinction between goods exempted from duty and those charged at a nil rate. As the disputed period predated the amendment, the judge applied the Tribunal's ruling in Arun Auto Spring, allowing the credit on GI wires and overturning the previous decision.
In conclusion, the judge ruled in favor of the appellants, deeming the credit of Rs. 3,29,689.70 on GI wires as admissible. By invoking the Tribunal's precedent and scrutinizing the relevant notifications and legal interpretations, the judge set aside the previous order and granted the appeal, highlighting the importance of accurate interpretation and application of excise duty regulations.
-
2006 (12) TMI 431
Issues:
Violation of conditions of exemption notification, imposition of penalty, financial hardship of the appellant.
Violation of Conditions of Exemption Notification:
The appellant was required to pre-deposit duty amount due to the wrong availment of Cenvat credit under exemption Notification No. 8/03-C.E. The appellant inadvertently failed to opt for the exemption before availing it, leading to the initiation of action by the Revenue. The appellant acknowledged the violation and expressed willingness to pay the differential duty of Rs. 12,308. The Tribunal considered the appellant's financial distress, being a State Government undertaking with significant accumulated losses, and decided to allow the appeal based on the payment of the differential duty within a specified period.
Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contested the imposition of a penalty along with the duty amount. The appellant's representative argued that the penalty was excessive, considering the circumstances of financial hardship faced by the appellant. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, set aside the demand for the duty amount and equal penalty confirmed in the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's readiness to pay the differential duty promptly and the absence of any other serious infractions such as clandestine removal of goods.
Financial Hardship of the Appellant:
The appellant, a financially distressed State Government undertaking with significant accumulated losses, highlighted their inability to pay the penalty and requested leniency from the Tribunal. The appellant's representative emphasized the non-violation of specific CENVAT Rules and the absence of any illicit activities, stating that the only error was the failure to opt for the exemption before availing it. The Tribunal, considering the appellant's financial situation and their willingness to rectify the error by paying the differential duty, decided to grant relief by setting aside the penalty and confirming the appeal based on the payment of the duty within the stipulated timeframe.
This judgment showcases the Tribunal's consideration of the specific circumstances of the appellant, including financial distress, inadvertent violation of exemption conditions, and willingness to rectify the error promptly, leading to the decision to allow the appeal based on the payment of the differential duty amount.
-
2006 (12) TMI 430
Issues: The judgment involves the utilization of deemed Cenvat credit on textile fabrics processed for export under bond without payment of duty and the question of whether the accumulated deemed credit lapsed after the withdrawal of the facility.
Summary:
The appellants, engaged in processing textile fabrics, availed Cenvat credit including deemed credit under Notification 6/2002-C.E. and utilized it during clearance. They cleared fabrics for export under bond without payment of duty, resulting in an accumulation of deemed credit. The facility of deemed credit was withdrawn in the budget proposal for 2003-2004, making Notification 6/2002 inoperative from 1-4-2003. The appellants utilized the accumulated credit post this date, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of Cenvat credit issued on 9-2-2004. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand, imposing a penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the current appeal.
Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' submission that legally earned Cenvat credit does not lapse and can be utilized. Citing precedents like Kusum Products Ltd. v. UOI and decisions of the Tribunal in similar cases, the Tribunal held that there is no provision for the lapse of unutilized Modvat credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 28-12-06.
-
2006 (12) TMI 429
Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of refund of Rs. 1,30,807.
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 1,30,807, which was initially deposited as a pre-deposit amount. The Commissioner (Appeals) had confirmed a demand of Rs. 5,69,193, and the appellant sought a refund of the excess amount. However, the adjudicating authority had adjusted the refund against another pending demand of duty arising from a separate order-in-appeal. The main contention raised was that the adjustment of the refund against a different demand was not legally sustainable.
The appellant argued that the adjustment of the refund of the pre-deposit amount against another pending demand was not permissible under the law. The appellant had deposited the amount as a pre-deposit, and the adjudicating authority should not have adjusted it against a different penalty that was pending before the Tribunal. The appellant cited relevant legal precedents to support their argument.
The Departmental Representative supported the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and argued that the adjustment of arrears from the refund amount was authorized under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. It was contended that the adjustment was valid as it was within the powers granted by the law.
Upon review of the case and considering the arguments presented, the Tribunal found that the adjustment of the refund against another pending case was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had deposited the amount as a pre-deposit against a stay order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal also highlighted that the appellant had obtained a stay order in the case against which the refund was adjusted. Citing relevant legal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2006 (12) TMI 428
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 11B(2) and the proviso to refunds arising from finalization of provisional assessments under Rule 9B.
2. Compliance with earlier appellate orders regarding refund claims.
3. Doctrine of unjust enrichment in the context of provisional assessments.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 11B(2) and the proviso to refunds arising from finalization of provisional assessments under Rule 9B:
The appeal primarily contests the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the refund claim in terms of Section 11B(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arguing that this provision is inapplicable where provisional assessment is finalized under Rule 9B. The appellant cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which unequivocally stated that "any recoveries or refunds consequent upon the adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B will not be governed by Section 11A or Section 11B." This principle was further supported by decisions in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Suntrack Electronics (P) Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II v. Allied Photographics India Ltd., Sinkhai Synthetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE Aurangabad, and others, all reinforcing that Section 11B does not apply to refunds following the finalization of provisional assessments under Rule 9B.
2. Compliance with earlier appellate orders regarding refund claims:
The appellant does not challenge the part of the order directing compliance with the earlier appellate order dated 22-5-2001, which required the adjudicating authority to finalize the assessment based on deductions of "installation and training charges" from the assessable value. The appellant had submitted the necessary details to the concerned officer and filed a fresh refund claim. However, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim due to non-submission of the claim in the proper format and lack of original duty-paying documents, which the appellant attributed to a fire accident in the factory.
3. Doctrine of unjust enrichment in the context of provisional assessments:
The Department argued that sub-section (3) of Section 11B, which overrides any contrary provisions, including Rule 9B, mandates that refunds must be processed as per Section 11B(2). The Department cited the Supreme Court decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, which invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment irrespective of Section 11B's applicability. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Allied Photographics' case and the affirming order in Oriental Exports v. Commissioner had clearly established that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply to refunds consequent to the finalization of provisional assessments under Rule 9B(5).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the portion of the impugned order directing the adjudicating authority to consider the refund claim in light of Section 11B(2) is set aside. The adjudicating authority is directed to act according to the other directions contained in the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal is accordingly allowed, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's decisions have definitively settled the issue, leaving no room for the revenue to rely on sub-section (3) of Section 11B in this context.
-
2006 (12) TMI 427
Issues: Liability of importer for duty on shortage of goods while in bonded warehouse custody. Applicability of Customs Act provisions Sec. 28 and Sec. 72.
Liability of Importer for Duty on Shortage of Goods:
The case involved a dispute regarding the liability of an importer for payment of duty on the shortage of goods while they were in the custody of a public bonded warehouse, Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). The importer had imported Di-Isobutylene and warehoused it at Kandla, following which a portion was transferred to CWC, Khopoli. A shortage was discovered when the importer sought clearance, leading to demands for customs duty and special excise duty. The importer argued that they were not liable for duty on the shortage as CWC was the custodian and should bear the responsibility. However, both authorities confirmed the duty liability on the importer for the shortage goods.
Applicability of Customs Act Provisions:
The appellant relied on a previous judgment in the case of Essar Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar, regarding the applicability of Customs Act provisions. They argued that Sec. 28 was not applicable as no order permitting clearance for home consumption was issued. Additionally, they contended that Sec. 72 was also not applicable based on a different case law. The court acknowledged the doubt surrounding the applicability of Sec. 72 to situations where goods were not properly accounted for by the custodian, CWC. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court found a prima facie case in favor of the importer, suggesting that the responsibility for duty payment might lie with the custodian. As a result, the court waived the pre-deposit and granted a stay on recovery pending appeal disposal.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the importer's liability for duty on shortage goods in a bonded warehouse and analyzed the applicability of relevant Customs Act provisions. The decision highlighted the importance of proper custodial accountability and raised questions about the responsibility for duty payment in such cases, ultimately granting relief to the importer based on a prima facie case in their favor.
............
|
9911796707
