|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 639 Records
-
2010 (6) TMI 705
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. dated 19-12-2007 and subsequent notifications.
2. Validity of the respondents' option under the compounded levy scheme.
3. Effect of rescission of Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. dated 19-12-2007 on the obligations of the manufacturers.
4. Conflict between Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and subsequent notifications.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the period from 1-7-2008 to 15-7-2008 when both Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and Notification No. 30/2008-C.E. were in force. The adjudicating authority held that the respondents had no option under the law due to the changes brought about by Section 3A and subsequent notifications. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. was rescinded on 16-7-2008, and the department could not expect compliance with it after rescission. The issue was whether the rescinded notification still had an effect during the overlapping period.
2. The respondents had opted for the compounded levy scheme under Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. in January 2008. The respondents argued that they were bound by this option until the end of the financial year and could not opt out before that. They relied on the principle established in the case of CCE v. Venus Castings Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that once a scheme is opted for, the manufacturer cannot opt out until the expiry of the financial year. The respondents contended that their valid right acquired through the scheme could not be taken away until the rescission of Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. on 16-7-2008.
3. The statutory provisions required manufacturers of specified goods to make declarations and pay duty as per the new rules introduced under Section 3A and subsequent notifications. The dispute arose due to the overlap in the applicability of Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. and the new rules. The respondents argued that they were obligated to comply with the compounded levy scheme until the rescission of the old notification, while the department emphasized the overriding effect of the new statutory provisions and the need for compliance with the updated rules.
4. The conflicting notifications and the timing of rescission of Notification No. 38/2007-C.E. raised questions about the hierarchy of legal provisions and the obligations of manufacturers during the transitional period. The applicants sought a stay of the impugned order, arguing that the rescinded notification could not override the subsequent notifications until its rescission date. The Tribunal considered the prima facie case made by the applicants and granted a stay of the impugned order pending further appeals, acknowledging the need to clarify the legal obligations during the overlapping period.
-
2010 (6) TMI 704
Issues involved: Alleged fraudulent passing of Cenvat credit based on fake documents, liability of registered dealers and manufacturer, penalties imposed.
Summary:
Issue 1: Alleged fraudulent passing of Cenvat credit based on fake documents
The case involved M/s. Sulabh Impex Incorporation allegedly issuing fake invoices to registered dealers, who then passed on the credit to the manufacturer, resulting in a demand of Rs. 3,46,797/- under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. The original authority confirmed the demand, along with penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner on appeal.
Issue 2: Liability of registered dealers and manufacturer
The learned Advocate argued that the registered dealers were not aware of the fake nature of the documents and that the manufacturer should not be questioned for transactions between the importer and dealers. The Advocate also cited guidelines to support the claim that non-payment of duty by the supplier does not justify denying credit to bona fide purchasers. The SDR, however, contended that since the goods were never imported and the Bills of Entry were fake, the registered dealers were complicit in the fraud. The Tribunal found that while the manufacturer had taken credit based on fake documents, there was no evidence that the dealers and manufacturer were aware of the fraud, leading to the setting aside of penalties on the dealers.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty along with interest for the manufacturer, M/s. G.L. Metallica (P) Ltd., while setting aside the penalty. The penalties on registered dealers M/s. Agarwal Products and M/s. Yash Industries were also set aside due to lack of evidence of their awareness of the fraudulent activities.
-
2010 (6) TMI 703
Issues:
Central Excise duty liability on furniture manufacturing and installation; Acceptance of documentary evidence over oral evidence; Treatment of goods manufactured at site as excisable; Marketability of goods fixed to wall; Commissioner's reliance on photographs for decision-making.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the Central Excise duty liability of a furniture manufacturer and installer, based on the intelligence that the assessee was engaged in manufacturing seats convertible into beds, wooden furniture, and other related items under Chapter 94. The assessee's turnover and details of duty payable were recorded during the investigation.
2. The statements of the proprietor regarding the cost of furniture, design charges, and job workers' costs were crucial in determining the duty liability. The worksheets prepared based on sales invoices seized under panchnama provided insights into the value of furniture, duty amounts, and civil work executed by the assessee.
3. The Commissioner's order focused on the nature of the goods manufactured, particularly those fixed to walls or grounds, justifying abatement for items not easily disassembled. The Commissioner recalculated the duty liability, considering the goods' permanency and inability to be reused once disassembled, leading to the dropping of further proceedings.
4. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the Commissioner relied solely on photographs submitted by the assessee, overlooking the proprietor's admissions of manufacturing and clearing furniture. They contended that goods existed before installation and should be treated as excisable, emphasizing the marketability of the items fixed to walls.
5. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of documentary evidence over oral testimony, supporting the Commissioner's reliance on photographs unless proven otherwise. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's analysis detailed and accurate, dismissing the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of merit in challenging the Commissioner's decision based on the documentary evidence presented.
6. The judgment clarified the significance of documentary evidence, the nature of goods manufactured at the site, and the Commissioner's thorough analysis in determining duty liability. The decision highlighted the need for concrete evidence to challenge established facts and upheld the Commissioner's findings based on the evidence provided.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision regarding duty liability on the manufactured goods, the treatment of items fixed to walls, and the reliance on documentary evidence for accurate assessment. The judgment underscored the importance of detailed analysis and factual evidence in resolving excise duty disputes.
-
2010 (6) TMI 702
Refund claim - exports under bond - denial on the ground that the assessee was in a position to utilize the credit in respect of the goods cleared for export under rebate - Held that: - No manufacturer can be compelled to clear the exports under rebate and they are free to make their own choice out of various options given to them under the law - Revenue’s contention that the party has failed to provide evidence that they were not able to utilize the Cenvat credit for payment of duty in case of exports under rebate, cannot be accepted inasmuch as wherever the respondents have exported goods under rebate, they have utilized the credit - refund allowed - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2010 (6) TMI 701
Recall/review of order - recall sought on the ground that the provisions of law were not properly appreciated while deciding the matter, various judgments sought to be relied upon were not taken into consideration and Department even ignored board’s circular dated 2-1-02.
Held that: - It is settled law that, the question of recall of an order can arise only when there is error apparent on the face of the record or when mistake is committed by the Tribunal itself which if allowed to be remained on record could result in irreparable loss or injury to the parties. Merely because particular view is not in consonance with the view taken by some other Benches, that itself cannot be a ground for review.
There is no error apparent disclosed in the order, there is no cause for recall of the said order. Mere financial difficulty for the party to challenge the order by way of appeals cannot be a ground for review of the order.
Application dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 700
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of SIOOXY capsules under the Central Excise Tariff.
2. Allegation of willful suppression of information and mis-declaration.
3. Applicability of the extended limitation period under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
4. Requirement of pre-deposit for hearing the appeal.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of SIOOXY Capsules:
The primary issue revolves around whether SIOOXY capsules, containing Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, should be classified under sub-heading 15042090 (nil duty) as "other Fats and Oils and their fractions, of fish, other than liver oil" or under sub-heading 30045090 (16% duty) as "other medicaments containing vitamins or other products of heading 2936." The appellant argued that the product is a dietary supplement and not a medicament, thus falling under Chapter 15. The department contended that the product is a medicament due to its therapeutic and prophylactic uses, fitting under Chapter 30.
2. Allegation of Willful Suppression of Information and Mis-declaration:
The department alleged that the appellant deliberately mis-declared the product name in the ER-1 returns as "SOOXY" instead of "SIOOXY" and did not mention the tariff heading, suggesting willful suppression of information to evade duty. The appellant countered that the mis-spelling was a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate mis-declaration. They highlighted their consistent communication with the department since October 2003 regarding the product's classification and duty rate, arguing against any intent to suppress information.
3. Applicability of the Extended Limitation Period:
The show cause notices dated 22nd June 2007 and 11th September 2007 were issued by invoking the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the longer limitation period should not apply as there was ongoing correspondence with the department about the product's classification since October 2003. The tribunal found that the department was aware of the product and its classification issues, indicating that the extended limitation period might not be justified. Consequently, a significant portion of the duty demand could be time-barred.
4. Requirement of Pre-deposit:
The appellant requested a waiver of the pre-deposit requirement, arguing a strong prima facie case and undue hardship if required to deposit the entire amount. The tribunal considered both the merits of the case and the financial hardship. It directed the appellant to deposit an additional Rs. 18,00,000/- within six weeks, on top of the Rs. 22,00,000/- already deposited, to waive the requirement for the remaining duty, interest, and penalty until the appeal's disposal.
Conclusion:
The tribunal acknowledged the complexity of the classification issue and the appellant's substantial communication with the department, which could negate the allegation of willful suppression. While the department had a strong prima facie case on the merits, the tribunal balanced the interests of revenue and the appellant's hardship by requiring a partial pre-deposit. The final resolution of the classification and duty demand issues would hinge on further proceedings.
-
2010 (6) TMI 699
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the contravention of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 by the appellants, specifically regarding the availing of Cenvat credit without maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable final products and exempted goods, leading to the imposition of penalty.
Details of the Judgment:
Manufacture of Air Compressors & Parts:
The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of air compressors & parts classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 8414.80 and 8414.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had been availing Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods u/s Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002.
Contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002:
The investigation revealed that the appellants had availed Cenvat credit without maintaining separate accounts for inputs used in dutiable final products and exempted goods for the period March 2002 to July 2003. Show cause notices were issued, leading to the imposition of penalty and demands by the authorities.
Imposition of Penalty:
The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,16,331/- along with interest and penalty for non-compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the present appeals challenging the imposition of penalty.
Legal Arguments:
The appellants argued that while there was a contravention of Rule 6(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion, or intent to evade duty on their part. They cited the decision of the Bombay High Court and provisions of Rule 13(2) to support their contention that penalty imposition requires specific conditions to be met.
Decision of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal observed that non-maintenance of separate accounts for inputs did amount to wrongful utilization of Cenvat credit. However, without evidence of fraud, wilful mis-statement, collusion, or intent to evade duty, imposition of penalty was not justified. The appeals partly succeeded, and the imposition of penalty was quashed and set aside.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeals, setting aside the imposition of penalty due to lack of evidence of fraudulent intent or wilful mis-statement by the appellants. The impugned orders were upheld, and no further interference was deemed necessary.
-
2010 (6) TMI 698
Issues:
Admissibility of credit on joists used in respect of EOT cranes.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of credit on joists used in relation to EOT cranes. The department appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 16-3-07, specifically focusing on the admissibility of credit on joists amounting to Rs. 43,261, which had been allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the setting aside of the penalty. The department argued that materials like joists, angles, beams, bars used for foundation and supporting structures are not eligible for credit, citing a decision by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that joists play a functional role in supporting EOT cranes and should be considered independent parts rather than supporting structures. The respondent relied on various legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Tribunal decision, to support their argument.
Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. which addressed key questions regarding the eligibility of credit on items like joists. The Tribunal highlighted that goods like cement and steel items used for laying foundation and supporting structures cannot be treated as inputs for capital goods, thus not eligible for credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules. In the present case, the Tribunal found that the joists were indeed used as supporting structures for EOT cranes, aligning with the principles established in the Vandana Global case. Therefore, the credit allowed on joists by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed unjustified, leading to the setting aside of the order and restoration of the original authority's decision regarding the disallowance of credit on joists. However, considering the divergent interpretations by different authorities on this issue, the Tribunal concluded that the department's plea for the restoration of penalty was not justified.
In conclusion, the appeal by the department was partly allowed by setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that permitted the credit on joists, thereby reinstating the original authority's decision disallowing such credit.
-
2010 (6) TMI 697
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of RCC cement blocks.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 64/88-C.E. and successor notifications.
3. Classification under sub-headings 6807.20 and 6807.90 post-1997.
4. Applicability of extended period of limitation under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
5. Eligibility for MODVAT/CENVAT credit on inputs.
6. Eligibility for SSI exemption.
7. Levy of interest under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of RCC Cement Blocks:
The appellant described their products as "hollow/solid cement blocks constituting components of prefabricated buildings falling under Heading 94.06" and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 64/88-C.E. The classification lists filed up to 1990 were approved, but later lists were provisionally approved due to a classification dispute. The department issued show-cause notices alleging that the blocks were used for constructing walls and did not constitute intermediates or components of prefabricated buildings falling under Heading 94.06.
2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:
The Tribunal considered whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 64/88-C.E. and successor notifications. The Tribunal referred to the National Building Code and other technical literature to determine if the blocks could be considered as intermediates or components of prefabricated buildings. The Tribunal concluded that the blocks were used as basic masonry units like bricks and not as components of prefabricated buildings, thus denying the benefit of the notification.
3. Classification Under Sub-headings 6807.20 and 6807.90 Post-1997:
From 1-4-1997, the department wanted to classify the blocks under sub-heading 6807.90 and levy duty at a higher rate. The Tribunal examined whether the blocks could be considered as "of a kind used in prefabricated buildings of Heading 94.06" to grant the benefit of lower duty under SH 6807.20. The Tribunal found that the blocks were not used in prefabricated buildings and upheld their classification under SH 6807.90, denying the benefit of the concessional rate.
4. Applicability of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant contested the demand of duty on the ground of limitation, arguing that all relevant facts were disclosed to the department through classification lists and declarations. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not wilfully misstated or suppressed facts and that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A(1) was not invocable. Consequently, demands of duty beyond the normal period of limitation were held to be time-barred.
5. Eligibility for MODVAT/CENVAT Credit on Inputs:
The appellant claimed MODVAT/CENVAT credit on inputs as an alternative relief. The Tribunal held that the appellant would be entitled to MODVAT/CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of concrete blocks if they could prove that such inputs were duty-paid and used in the said manner.
6. Eligibility for SSI Exemption:
The appellant also pleaded for SSI exemption as an alternative to the benefit of Notification 64/88. The Tribunal directed that the appellant's alternative plea for SSI benefit should be considered for the period prior to 1-3-2000.
7. Levy of Interest Under Section 11AB and Penalty Under Section 11AC:
The Tribunal found that the grounds for invoking the extended period of limitation did not exist, and therefore, interest on duty under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC were not leviable. However, the Tribunal held that penal liability under Rule 173Q read with Rule 9(2) was inescapable for the appellant as they had not determined or paid the correct amount of duty during the said period.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal ordered the following:
- Denial of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 64/88 and successor notifications for the period from June 1988 to March 1997.
- Classification of the products under SH 6807.90 for the period from April 1997 and denial of the benefit of entry 117(2) of Notification No. 5/97-C.E.
- Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 6/2000 for the period from 1-3-2000.
- Consideration of the appellant's alternative plea for SSI benefit for the period prior to 1-3-2000.
- Allowance of MODVAT/CENVAT credit on inputs subject to mandatory requirements.
- Allowance of abatement of duty from the sale price to determine the assessable value.
- Holding that demands of duty beyond the normal period of limitation are time-barred.
- No levy of interest under Section 11AB or penalty under Section 11AC.
- Requantification of duty and redetermination of penalty by the Commissioner after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
- Disposal of all pending classification lists and declarations in light of the Tribunal's order.
The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2010 (6) TMI 696
Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner's order regarding 'd' factor determination and duty demand, imposition of penalty, and applicability of penal provisions.
'd' factor determination: The appellant, a manufacturer of steel products, declared 'd' factor as 245, but officers measured it as 261, leading to a demand for differential duty. Commissioner re-determined 'd' factor as 258 based on technical reports. Tribunal initially held proceedings invalid post deletion of Section 3A, but High Court directed continuation. Appellant accepted 'd' factor as 258 but disputed the effective date of change.
Effective date of 'd' factor change: Appellant argued for no revision in production capacity determination due to wear and tear, citing precedents. Alternatively, sought effect from visit date or repair date. Disputed penalty imposition under Section 11AC instead of Rule 96ZP(1).
Penalty imposition: Appellant challenged penalty under Section 11AC, contending it should be under Rule 96ZP(1) only. Also, sought application of first proviso to Section 11AC for penalty calculation.
Decision: Tribunal upheld Commissioner's 'd' factor re-determination as 258 from 16-7-98, rejecting appellant's arguments on repair impact and penalty applicability. Upheld penalty under Rule 96ZP(1) and denied first proviso to Section 11AC application. Rejected the appeal, emphasizing duty payment with interest and proper penalty imposition under compounded levy scheme.
-
2010 (6) TMI 695
Issues Involved:
1. Classification and Excise Duty on Free Bicycles
2. Applicability of Quantity Discount
3. Promotional Scheme and Marketability
4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification and Excise Duty on Free Bicycles:
The appellants, manufacturers of bicycles, were found to have supplied free bicycles to dealers without paying excise duty. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,61,975/- plus interest and imposed a penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. The bicycles supplied free were of a different model than those sold to customers, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice demanding duty on these free bicycles, viewing them as part of a promotional scheme rather than a regular quantity discount.
2. Applicability of Quantity Discount:
The appellants argued that the free bicycles should be considered under quantity discount, referencing an invoice and a Supreme Court decision in CCE, Chennai v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. The appellants contended that the value of free bicycles should not be included in the value of goods sold. However, the Departmental Representative countered that the free bicycles were different from those sold and were part of a promotional scheme, not a regular quantity discount. The show cause notice and the appellant's reply indicated that the free bicycles were indeed different models, and this was not disputed by the appellants.
3. Promotional Scheme and Marketability:
The scheme was introduced to enhance marketability and compete with other brands, as admitted by the appellants. The promotional scheme was not uniformly applicable across all regions and dealers, further supporting the Department's stance that it was a sales promotion rather than a regular discount. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Pearl Drinks Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi, where supplying free items as part of advertising or sales promotion was not considered a trade discount.
4. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability:
The Tribunal noted that the decision in Pearl Drinks Ltd. was upheld by the Supreme Court, establishing that promotional expenses that enhance marketability are not admissible as trade discounts. The appellants' reliance on Hindustan Lever Ltd. was found inapplicable as it dealt with a different context of quantity discount and required factual ascertainment of free units given as replacements for damaged stock. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' case was covered by the Pearl Drinks decision, confirming that the free bicycles supplied for promotional purposes were subject to excise duty.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, with the Tribunal finding no grounds for interference in the impugned order. The decision reinforced that promotional schemes enhancing marketability do not qualify for trade discount exemptions and are liable for excise duty.
-
2010 (6) TMI 694
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation.
3. Imposition of penalty.
Summary:
1. Entitlement to exemption from Central Excise duty under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.:
The respondents, engaged in manufacturing ordinary Portland cement under the brand name "Diamond," claimed exemption from Central Excise duty u/s Notification No. 1/93-C.E., as amended by Notification No. 16/97-C.E. The Department contended that the brand name "Diamond" belonged to M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd., registered under the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and thus, the respondents were not entitled to the exemption. The Deputy Commissioner, Meerut, dropped the proceedings, noting differences in the logos used by the respondents and M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, but the Tribunal found that the respondents were not entitled to the exemption as the brand name indicated a connection with another company, disqualifying them from the benefit under the notification.
2. Invocation of extended period of limitation:
The respondents argued that the Department could not invoke the extended period of limitation as there was no suppression of fact, misstatement, or fraud. They claimed they were under a bona fide belief that the brand name "Diamond" was not the trademark of any other cement manufacturer. However, the Tribunal noted that the respondents did not disclose that the brand name belonged to M/s. Mysore Cements Ltd. The Tribunal found that the respondents' failure to disclose this fact constituted suppression with intent to evade duty, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.
3. Imposition of penalty:
The Department argued that the authorities erred in not imposing a penalty. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had not addressed the issue of penalty as it had dismissed the proceedings on merits. The Tribunal held that the issue of penalty could only arise after confirming the duty liability. Since the duty liability was not quantified, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to quantify the duty liability along with interest and penalty, if any, after hearing the parties.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to quantify the duty liability along with interest and penalty, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
-
2010 (6) TMI 693
Issues:
Refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944; Premature rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner; Appeal allowed by Commissioner (Appeals); Justification for rejection of refund claim; Investigation pending regarding wrongful availment of Cenvat credit; Show cause notice issuance; Confirmation of wrongful availment of Cenvat credit; Refund granted by Commissioner (Appeals); Application for refund; Delay in initiating proceedings by the department; Powers of departmental authority; Right to refund; Comparison with relevant case law.
Refund Claim under Section 11B:
The case involved a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the respondents, engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, sought a refund of Rs. 26,28,957/- deposited under protest following directions from the department. The claim was based on the contention that no duty was payable by them, as no notice or demand had been issued, warranting a refund of duty by the Department.
Premature Rejection of Refund Claim by Assistant Commissioner:
Initially, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim as premature, stating that it was filed in respect of discrepancies pointed out by visiting officers of the DGCEI. The rejection was based on the belief that the claim was premature and therefore liable to be dismissed at that stage.
Appeal Allowed by Commissioner (Appeals):
The respondents appealed this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal on the grounds that no confirmed demand or show cause notice existed against the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that without a confirmed demand, the appellants could not be asked to pay any amount, leading to the decision to grant the refund.
Investigation Pending Regarding Wrongful Availment of Cenvat Credit:
The key issue revolved around the investigation pending regarding the alleged wrongful availment of Cenvat credit by the respondents. The department argued that investigations were ongoing, justifying the rejection of the refund claim as premature. However, the respondents maintained that no adjudication proceedings were pending, and no show cause notice had been issued at the relevant time.
Justification for Rejection of Refund Claim:
The crux of the matter was the justification for rejecting the refund claim. The department contended that investigations were still pending, while the respondents argued that without any confirmed demand or show cause notice, the rejection of the refund claim was unwarranted.
Comparison with Relevant Case Law:
The decision was compared with relevant case law, specifically the case of Pearl Polymers Ltd., to determine the applicability of the precedent. The comparison highlighted the importance of pending adjudication proceedings in deciding on refund claims, which was not the case in the current matter.
Delay in Initiating Proceedings by the Department:
Another significant aspect was the delay in initiating proceedings by the department. The respondents had debited the amount under protest and filed for a refund, claiming no proceedings had been initiated against them. The delay in taking action was considered unjustifiable, leading to the decision to grant the refund by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Powers of Departmental Authority and Right to Refund:
The judgment underscored the diligent exercise of powers by the departmental authority to ensure proper revenue recovery. It emphasized that the department should not withhold refunds arbitrarily, especially when no confirmed demand or proceedings existed against the assessee.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to grant the refund. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely actions by the department, the absence of pending adjudication proceedings, and the right of the assessee to seek a refund in the absence of confirmed demands or show cause notices.
-
2010 (6) TMI 692
Issues:
1. Whether the appellant can procure goods under Notification No. 43/2001 while working under an advance license scheme.
Analysis:
The appellant filed stay applications seeking waiver of pre-deposit of Central Excise duty, penalty, and interest under Section 11AB of the CE Act, 1944. The demands arose due to the appellant procuring items under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.). The lower authorities contended that the appellant could not have procured goods under this notification while operating under an advance license scheme.
The appellant's counsel argued that they had fully complied with the conditions of Notification No. 43/2001 and that these conditions did not prohibit them from importing or using duty-exempt goods under the advance license scheme. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative highlighted Clause-5 of the exemptions under the advance license scheme, which, according to them, barred an assessee from benefiting from the exemption under Rule 19(2) of the Central Excise Rules 2002 if operating under the advance license scheme. They pointed out that Notification No. 43/2001 was issued under Rule 19(2) of C.E. Rules 2002.
After considering both arguments and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the lower authorities had confirmed the demand for Central excise duty on goods procured under Notification No. 43/2001. However, the Tribunal noted that this notification did not contain any condition preventing the appellant from using the goods procured under it along with goods obtained under the advance license scheme. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant had established a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts in question. As a result, the application for the waiver of pre-deposit was allowed, and the recovery of the amounts stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2010 (6) TMI 691
Liability of interest - scope of Show Cause Notice - Section 11A - Sections 11AA - section 11AB - interest, whether penal in nature or compensatory in nature - amended provisions - period of demand from 1-4-2000 to 11-5-2001 - time limitation.
-
2010 (6) TMI 690
The appellate tribunal in Chennai upheld a demand of Rs. 52,224 with interest and penalty against the assessees for reversal of credit on transformer oil cleared separately. The penalty under Section 11AC was set aside as there was no suppression or misstatement found.
-
2010 (6) TMI 689
Whether the Tribunal was right in presuming that the cash discount was made known to the customers of the respondent prior to the clearance of the said goods from the factory, in the absence of any proof in that regard?
Whether the Tribunal and the authorities were right in granting the refund, in the absence of proof of nexus between the goods sold and the goods cleared from the factory of the respondent?
Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim for refund was within time inspite of the department raising a ground that the refund claim was not submitted within the stipulated tie of 6 months as per Section 11(b) of the Central Excise Act? Whether the relevant date for submission of refund claim was the date of the clearance of the goods and payment of the excise duty or the date of sale of the goods?
Held that:- Tribunal on perusal of the entire records pertaining to the sixteen orders in original as well as the sixteen appellate orders, which were filed before it has confirmed the orders passed by the authorities by holding that there was nexus between the payment of duty and the clearance of the goods at the depots and that in respect of trade discount given to the customers there was a circular issued and that the customers were made known about the trade discount. It has also recorded that there was no unjust enrichment and that the Commissioner had examined the records to arrive at the conclusion that the refund claimed were within the prescribed time and therefore, the sanction accorded for refund of the said claims were in order.
On perusal of the very same material, which was filed before the Tribunal by the assessee, which has been filed before this Court, we find that in respect of each of the applications, the contentions raised by the revenue have been considered and the concurrent finding of facts have been given by all the three authorities. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the order passed by the said authorities do not call for any interference and accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
2010 (6) TMI 688
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-authority was justified in holding that ammonia in aqueous solution is chargeable at 12.5% although ammonia in aqueous solution is nothing but ammonia anhydrous mixed with water?
Held that:- There is a conscious exclusure of ammonia aqueous solution from the list of industrial inputs as per the notification dated 30-4-2005. As such, the same is not to be taxed at 4%, but under the general category at 12.5%. Therefore, the reference made to Circular No. 236/70/96-CX. dated 1-8-1996 issued by the Ministry of Defence, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs with regard to conversion of anhydrous ammonia into liquor ammonia and as to whether it amounts to manufacture has no relevance. Therefore, reference is made by the counsel for the appellant to the circular. Hence, the Authority of Advance Ruling was justified in holding that the product, “ammonia, anhydrous” is different from “ammonia in aqueous solution” and thereby the rate of tax would be different i.e., 12.5% for the latter and 4% for the former product. Accordingly, the said order does not call for any interference in this appeal. Hence, the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
-
2010 (6) TMI 687
Whether an order of withdrawal passed by this Court amounts to confirmation/approval of the judgment and order of the High Court and as to whether appellant could be treated differently?
Held that:- Appeal dismissed. There is nothing on record to show that the tentative price determined by the State could be unreasonable or arbitrary and it is not the case of the allottee that the market value of the land has not been enhanced while deciding the reference under the Act 1894.
-
2010 (6) TMI 686
Issues Involved:
1. Clandestine clearances of goods to DTA without proper permission and payment of duty.
2. Violation of relevant notifications regarding duty-free imported and indigenous capital goods, machinery, spares, components, and consumables used in granite quarries.
3. Fulfillment of export obligations and Net Foreign Exchange Earning as a Percentage (NFEP).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Clandestine Clearances of Goods to DTA:
The tribunal confirmed that M/s. Madhucon Granites Pvt. Ltd. (MGPL) clandestinely cleared finished products to Varalakshmi Granite Pvt. Ltd. (VGPL) and other places without payment of duty, amounting to Rs. 40,89,824/-. The company failed to prove that the goods were rejects, and the Commissioner's valuation based on private records and statements from MGPL and VGPL executives was upheld. The tribunal also upheld the demand of Rs. 3,78,101/- for clearances of sawn slabs to VGPL, as MGPL could not produce evidence of job work or obtain permission for such activities.
2. Violation of Relevant Notifications:
The major demand was for the exemption availed on capital goods, machinery, spares, components, and consumables used in quarries, which was contrary to Notification No. 37/2000-C.E. and Notification No. 58/2000-Cus. The tribunal found that MGPL used duty-free goods at quarries for excavation of granite blocks, which were exported directly without being brought to the EOU premises, violating Condition No. 12 of the notifications. The tribunal upheld the demands for central excise and customs duties on both indigenous and imported goods used at quarries.
3. Fulfillment of Export Obligations and NFEP:
MGPL argued that they achieved NFEP and fulfilled export obligations, thus qualifying for the exemptions. The tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not dispute the fulfillment of export obligations but emphasized that the goods exported were not covered by the LOP issued to MGPL before 4-5-2005. The tribunal held that the impugned demands were set aside if the export obligation was fulfilled within the prescribed time frame.
Additional Issues:
- The tribunal found that MGPL was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 2/95-C.E. for DTA clearances, subject to conditions except for permission from the DC.
- The tribunal remanded the matter for re-quantification of duty and penal liability, considering cum-duty benefits and the Tribunal's decisions in similar cases.
- The appeal by MGPL's Executive Director for vacating the penalty was also allowed by way of remand, linked to the main appellant's duty liabilities.
Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the demands for clandestine clearances and violations of notifications but set aside the demands related to export obligations fulfillment, remanding the case for re-quantification and further adjudication. Both appeals were allowed by way of remand.
............
|
9911796707
