|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 699 Records
-
2008 (5) TMI 540
Issues:
Valuation of 'Bone Meat Meal' cleared to DTA under Central Excise Act vs. Customs Act.
Analysis:
The case involves a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) manufacturing 'Boneless Buffalo Meat' with 'Bone Meat Meal' as a byproduct cleared to Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). The dispute centers around the valuation of 'Bone Meat Meal' - whether under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act or Section 14 of the Customs Act. The appellant argues that the assessable value for DTA clearances should be determined under the Customs Act, not the Central Excise Act.
Throughout the dispute, the appellant paid excise duty on DTA clearances under Notification No. 13/98-CE at 30% of the aggregate of Customs duties. They contend that duty on DTA clearances for EOUs should be calculated as per Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, referencing the Customs Act for valuation. The appellant asserts that only the Customs Act and Valuation Rules should apply, not the Central Excise Act and Valuation Rules.
The respondent argues that as the goods were manufactured from indigenous raw materials, provisions of exemption Notifications No. 8/97-C.E. and 23/2003-C.E. apply, making Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and Central Excise Valuation Rules relevant. The respondent emphasizes that the assessable value should be based on the price at which the related person sells the goods to independent buyers.
The Tribunal rules in favor of the appellant, noting that duty on DTA clearances is paid under Notification 13/98-CE at 30% of Customs duties, requiring valuation as per the Customs Act when duty is ad valorem. The Tribunal emphasizes that the exemption Notifications cannot impose Central Excise Act provisions, thus determining the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the duty deposit and penalty are waived, and recovery is stayed, favoring the appellants.
-
2008 (5) TMI 539
Issues:
The appeal involves the rejection of a claim for rebate of Rs. 2,38,130.32 filed by the appellants u/s Notification 146/74 dated 12-10-1974 for excess production of sugar during the 1974-75 season.
Summary:
Issue 1: Calculation of Rebate
The appellants claimed rebate for excess sugar production in the 1974-75 season, which was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis that rebate should be calculated with reference to average production determined, not in terms of percentage with reference to excess quantity produced. The Revision Authority and the High Court upheld this decision. However, in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that rebate should be based on the percentage of excess production. Subsequently, the appellants filed a refund claim for the remaining amount, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of finality of the previous partial refund order and the scope of the apex court's decision.
Decision:
After considering both sides, it was found that the appeal lacked merit as the appellants did not challenge the previous order sanctioning only a partial refund. The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision only pertained to the calculation method of rebate and not the issue of granting rebate for duty-free sugar export. Consequently, the claim for refund was rightly rejected, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
-
2008 (5) TMI 538
Issues:
Imposability of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act or Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Imposability of Penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act or Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the imposability of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act or Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Revenue contended that due to delayed payment of duty, the respondent was liable for penalty under the second proviso to sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. It was highlighted that failure to pay duty by the due dates would result in the assessee being liable to pay the outstanding amount along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) opined that since the duty was paid before the issuance of a show-cause notice, there was no intention to evade payment of duty, and hence, penalty was not imposable under Section 11AC of the Act or Rule 173Q of the erstwhile Rules corresponding to Rule 25(1) of the 2002 Rules. The Commissioner referred to a Board's Circular dated 15-12-2003 to support this view.
Issue 2: Discretionary Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Imposing Penalty
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the delay of 42 days in paying the duty and the subsequent payment of interest by the respondent, noted that there was no evidence to suggest an intention to evade payment of duty. Although the second proviso to Rule 8(3) stipulated penalties for delayed payment, it was emphasized that penalties need not be imposed in every case. The Tribunal cited decisions of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals to support the exercise of discretion by the Commissioner (Appeals) in not imposing a penalty. Despite differing views in other cases, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order, deeming the exercise of discretion as rational and not arbitrary.
In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the Revenue's arguments. The judgment upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision not to impose a penalty despite the delayed payment of duty, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances and intentions of the parties involved in such cases.
-
2008 (5) TMI 537
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Time Limitation - the appellant filed the appeal beyond 31 days from the statutory time limit of sixty days provided for filing of appeal under Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - the preamble of the adjudication order cannot override the statutory time limit of filing the appeal - appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 536
Issues involved: Assessment of value for imported goods, contravention of Foreign Trade Policy, redemption fine, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.
Assessment of value: The appellant imported photocopiers declaring a lower value, but the Chartered Engineer assessed the goods at a higher value. The original authority determined the assessable value at the higher amount, leading to confiscation for contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy and misdeclaration of value.
Contravention of Foreign Trade Policy: The Commissioner upheld the original authority's decision based on a CBEC Circular prohibiting importers of second-hand machinery from making a profit on imports. The enhanced assessable value was deemed appropriate, as per the Circular's instructions.
Redemption fine and penalty: The appeal challenged the 100% increase in value and the high redemption fine and penalty imposed. The appellant argued that the fines were excessive compared to profit margins on similar imports. The appellant sought a reduction in the fine and penalty, which had been reduced in previous similar cases by the Tribunal.
Decision: The Tribunal accepted the enhanced value for assessment but considered the redemption fine and penalty excessive. While upholding the confiscation and penalties as per law, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 15% of the assessable value each, citing the need for a suitable deterrent penalty. The appeal was disposed of with the revised fines, and related applications were also resolved.
-
2008 (5) TMI 535
Issues:
1. Refund of interest paid under protest.
2. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) on technical grounds.
Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of refunding interest paid under protest by the appellants. The appellants had initially paid duty along with interest under protest due to an Audit objection. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, leading the Board to issue a Circular based on this decision. The Adjudicating Authority refunded the duty paid under protest but declined to return the interest, citing the absence of a provision under Central Excise law. The learned Advocate representing the appellants argued that the interest amount was Rs. 6,753. The Appellate Tribunal found merit in the appeal, acknowledging the refund of interest as per the Supreme Court's decision. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and an opportunity for the appellants to present their case effectively.
2. The second issue addressed in the judgment pertained to the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on technical grounds. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without issuing a Defect Memo, leading to the Tribunal deeming the rejection unsustainable. The learned Advocate contended that the appellants had indeed submitted the order of the Adjudicating Authority along with the Memorandum of Appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter back for proper consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to ensure a proper hearing in the future. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a just and thorough review of the case.
-
2008 (5) TMI 534
Issues:
Application for staying the operation of the impugned order and waiving the pre-deposit of the fine and penalty imposed.
Analysis:
The case involved an application for staying the operation of an order passed by the Commissioner and waiving the pre-deposit of a fine and penalty imposed pending the appeal. The appellants had imported machinery classified under a specific customs tariff heading, which was later found to be misclassified. This resulted in a short payment of duty, leading to a demand for duty payment, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner upheld the demand for duty, confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine, and penalty. The appellants contended that since the duty had been paid, and the misclassification was a matter of interpretation, confiscation and penalty were unwarranted.
Upon review, the tribunal found that the imported machinery could not manufacture briquettes as required by the customs tariff heading under which it was initially classified. The appellants used the machinery to convert municipal waste into granules for fuel in cement manufacturing, not for manufacturing briquettes. While the issue of misdeclaration was arguable, the tribunal determined that the order was not without merit to warrant a stay. However, considering that the entire duty had been paid, the tribunal waived the pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed its recovery pending the appeal's disposal. The decision was made based on the facts presented and the interpretation of the relevant tariff heading and the intended use of the imported machinery.
In conclusion, the tribunal denied the application for staying the operation of the order but waived the pre-deposit of the penalty and stayed its recovery until the appeal was resolved. The decision was based on the nature of the imported machinery, its use, and the interpretation of the customs tariff heading under which it was classified. The tribunal's analysis focused on the intent behind the import, the technical capabilities of the machinery, and the payment of duty, leading to the determination regarding the penalty pre-deposit and recovery stay.
-
2008 (5) TMI 533
Issues:
Rectification of mistake perceived in the Final Order No. 22/2008 dated 7-1-2008 regarding exemption from payment of duty on viscose staple fibre yarn, applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, unjust enrichment, reliance on judgments of the Bombay High Court and Tribunal, error in the final order, and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC.
Analysis:
The case involves a miscellaneous application for rectification of a mistake in a Final Order regarding duty exemption on viscose staple fibre yarn. The issue revolves around the applicability of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act concerning the collection of an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit not availed on raw materials. The appellant claims that Section 11D does not apply as the amount collected was related to inputs consumed, not duty on finished goods. The appellant cites a Bombay High Court judgment and a Tribunal decision to support their argument against unjust enrichment.
In the hearing, the consultant argues that Section 11D should not apply as the collected amount was duty foregone on inputs, not duty on final products. The Tribunal finds the consultant's reliance on previous judgments inappropriate, distinguishing the facts of the present case from those in other rulings. The Tribunal highlights that the facts do not align with cases where excess amounts were collected and later returned, emphasizing the specific conditions under Section 11D for refund eligibility.
The Final Order under scrutiny concluded that the appellant had returned excess amounts collected from buyers, indicating no evasion of duty warranting penalty under Section 11AC. The Order referenced a previous Tribunal decision regarding duty incidence passed on to customers and the conditions for refund eligibility under Section 11C(2). It emphasized that excess duty collected cannot be refunded if later returned to buyers, as the duty amount must be deposited with the Government per Section 11D.
Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the application for rectification, stating no errors were found in the Final Order. It upheld the decision based on the precedent set by the Sangam Processors case, supported by the Apex Court. The application was deemed devoid of merit, and the original decision was maintained.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of duty collection, applicability of statutory provisions, and the concept of unjust enrichment, drawing on legal precedents to determine the outcome of the case and uphold the Final Order.
-
2008 (5) TMI 532
Issues involved: Duty demand on cement concrete pipes manufactured by a government department, eligibility for duty exemption u/s Notification No. 105/80, time limitation for issuing show cause notice.
Duty demand on cement concrete pipes: The appeal was against a duty demand of Rs. 1,06,160 confirmed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise for the manufacture and clearance of cement concrete pipes during 1979-80, 1980-81, and 1981-82. The department contended that the exemption under Notification No. 105/80 did not apply to the manufacturer, a government department, due to aggregate clearances exceeding the specified limit.
Eligibility for duty exemption u/s Notification No. 105/80: The appellant argued that they met the conditions of the notification as their clearances were below Rs. 30 lacs for the relevant financial years. It was emphasized that there was no allegation of intentional evasion of duty or suppression of facts in the show cause notice, making it time-barred under the six-month limitation period.
Time limitation for issuing show cause notice: The Departmental Representative later amended the show cause notice in 1990 to invoke the provision of deliberate duty evasion. However, the Tribunal found that the original notice issued in 1985 did not contain any allegations of deliberate intention to evade duty or suppress facts. Given that the manufacturer was a government department, it was deemed unlikely that deliberate evasion would occur. Consequently, the Tribunal held the show cause notice as time-barred and set it aside, allowing the appeal.
-
2008 (5) TMI 531
Issues:
1. Stay petitions involving deposit of duty in import of old and used tyres.
2. Modification of stay order from 30% to 20% of duty and penalty.
3. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Fairness in the disposal of stay petitions and appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis:
1. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad addressed the stay petitions concerning the deposit of duty related to the import of old and used tyres. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had initially directed the appellants to deposit 30% of the duty involved in the assessment, subsequently modified to 20% through a corrigendum due to a typographical error. The appellants received the order on the last day of the specified period and deposited 30% of the duty before the corrigendum was received. The Commissioner later rejected all appeals for non-compliance under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the disposal of the stay petitions and appeals by the Commissioner (Appeals). It noted discrepancies in the order, such as directing the deposit of 30% of duty despite discussion on 20% of duty and penalty. The Tribunal criticized the lack of clarity in the order, with interpolated and overwritten portions, making the subsequent corrigendum less significant. The Commissioner's dismissal of appeals for non-compliance was deemed unfair, especially considering that the appellants had deposited the required amount before the deadline, which was not acknowledged.
3. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits without requiring any further pre-deposit from the appellants. All appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the stay petitions were also disposed of. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a more thoughtful approach in handling such matters to ensure fairness and proper consideration of all aspects before dismissing appeals for non-compliance.
This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad highlights the issues surrounding the stay petitions, modification of the deposit amount, dismissal of appeals, and the need for fairness in the disposal of such cases.
-
2008 (5) TMI 530
Clandestine removal - Penalty on transporter of goods - Held that: - there is no evidence to show involvement of the transporters to aid or abet the clandestine activity of the manufacturer, they cannot be held guilty of any violation. Mere providing vehicles and transporting goods will not attract any penal action against them - penalty set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 529
Issues:
Appeal against demand confirmation and penalty imposition for availing Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods.
Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing both dutiable and exempted medicines, appealed against the confirmation of demand and penalties imposed after officers found inputs used in manufacturing exempted goods on which credit was availed. The appellant contended that they purchased inputs from a trader, duly recorded the material in statutory records, and used them in manufacturing exempted goods without availing credit. The Revenue disputed the receipt of material based on transporter statements denying transportation, despite the supplier admitting the material supply and payments made through banking channels. The Revenue argued that investigation revealed the material was not supplied as transporter denied transportation. However, the appellant maintained that they received the material, recorded it, and used it for manufacturing exempted goods, with payments made through banking channels. The main contention was transporter statements denying transportation, but the appellant's documentation and payment records supported their claim. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.
This judgment highlights the importance of proper documentation, statutory record-keeping, and payment trail in cases involving availing credit on inputs used for manufacturing exempted goods. The dispute over material receipt, supported by transporter statements, was resolved in favor of the appellant due to strong evidence of material receipt, statutory record entry, and payment through banking channels. The judgment emphasizes the significance of maintaining accurate records to substantiate claims and defend against challenges to credit availed on inputs.
-
2008 (5) TMI 528
Issues:
Demand of additional duty of excise on Cotton Yarn in Cross Reel Hanks exempted from basic excise duty.
Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata, dealt with the demand of additional duty of excise on Cotton Yarn in Cross Reel Hanks, which were claimed to be exempted from basic excise duty for the period September 1998 to July 2004. The demand was made under four show-cause notices. The advocate for the appellants argued that since the impugned goods were exempted from basic excise duty, the additional duty of excise on textile and textile articles, levied at 15% of the basic excise duty, should be zero. It was further stated that for other Cotton Yarn not exempted from basic excise duty, the appellants had paid the additional duty at the prescribed rate and those goods were not part of the current appeal.
The Tribunal heard both sides, with the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise supporting the impugned order. The Tribunal considered Section 3(1) of the Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textiles Articles) Act, 1978, which imposes a levy of additional duty at 15% of the duty of excise chargeable on specified goods. Given that the basic excise duty assessed on the impugned goods was nil due to exemption, the appellants had a prima facie case for total waiver of the pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and allowed both parties to seek an early hearing due to the significant amount involved in the case, exceeding Rs. 1 Crore.
In conclusion, the judgment provided relief to the appellants by waiving the pre-deposit requirement based on the exemption from basic excise duty on the impugned goods. The decision was made in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and aimed to ensure fairness and procedural efficiency in the appeal process.
-
2008 (5) TMI 527
Issues:
1. Requirement of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
2. Dispute related to clandestine removal of goods described as 'work-in-progress.'
3. Absence of positive evidence on clandestine removal and invocation of extended period for demand.
4. Loss of work-in-progress due to leakage of water and adverse inference drawn.
5. Time-bar implications in case of clandestine removal.
6. Company's financial condition under rehabilitation scheme and waiver of pre-deposit.
7. Applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a significant amount under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act based on the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). An application seeking waiver of pre-deposit was filed, leading to a hearing on the matter.
2. The dispute revolved around the clandestine removal of goods categorized as 'work-in-progress.' The appellant argued that there was no concrete evidence supporting the claim of clandestine removal. Additionally, they contended that the absence of goods, leading to adverse inference, was due to a loss caused by water leakage, as reflected in the balance sheet.
3. The Tribunal found it challenging to accept the appellant's explanation regarding the substantial loss of work-in-progress, considering the production levels throughout the year. The balance sheet, combined with the circumstances, was deemed as positive evidence indicating the possibility of clandestine removal of goods.
4. Regarding the time-bar issue, in cases of clandestine removal, suppression, wilful misstatement, or fraud are inherent, justifying the application of the extended period of five years. The contention raised by the appellant regarding the time-bar was not found to be substantial.
5. The appellant highlighted the company's financial constraints due to being under a rehabilitation scheme, citing a Supreme Court case to support the waiver of pre-deposit. However, the Tribunal did not find a strong prima facie case in favor of full waiver but directed a partial deposit and waiver of the remaining amount.
6. The applicability of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to the pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act was discussed, emphasizing that the protection under Section 22 does not extend to the pre-deposit requirement, as clarified in a previous Supreme Court decision.
7. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the appellant to make a partial deposit within a specified time frame, with the remaining amount waived, and recovery stayed until the appeal's disposal, considering the financial condition of the company. Compliance was required to be reported by a specified date.
-
2008 (5) TMI 526
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalties by the Commissioner of Central Excise u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Confirmation of Demand:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing stainless steel and alloy steel ingots, filed appeals against the adjudication order confirming a demand of Rs. 82,67,765. The Revenue alleged that income shown under 'other receipts' in the balance sheet for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 was attributable to the sale of SS ingots and alloy steel ingots cleared without duty payment. The appellant contended they were also engaged in trading activities, supported by registration certificates, and produced evidence of various income sources like commission, slag sales, Dharam Kanta income, and freight income. The Revenue rejected this evidence as manipulated, but the appellant provided documents showing compliance with Service Tax and Sales Tax authorities. The Tribunal found the demand unsustainable as there was no evidence linking the 'other receipts' income to duty-free cleared goods.
Imposition of Penalties:
The Revenue argued that the appellant's ledger accounts and certain cash sales entries lacked verification and customer details for weighment payments were undisclosed, indicating 'other receipts' were from duty-free cleared goods. However, the Tribunal noted the appellant's registration for trading activities, production of invoices and bills for traded goods, and compliance with Service Tax payments. Despite the lack of verification from customers, employees, or evidence of unaccounted raw materials, the Tribunal found the demand based on 'other receipts' income unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals.
This judgment highlights the importance of providing verifiable evidence to support income sources and the necessity of establishing a clear link between income shown in financial statements and the activities subject to duty payments.
-
2008 (5) TMI 525
Issues involved: Appeal against remand order by Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) regarding alleged clandestine removal of iron and steel products.
Summary:
1. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the remand order by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) following a previous order by the Tribunal. The Revenue contended that the Ld. Commissioner did not properly consider the facts of clandestine removal, urging for a reexamination of the matter. The learned SDR supported the original adjudication order and sought a reversal of the first appeal decision.
2. The Respondent's representative argued that after the Tribunal's remand, the Ld. Commissioner issued a fresh order indicating a lack of evidence supporting the allegations of clandestine removal. The Ld. Commissioner highlighted the absence of crucial corroboration regarding the transportation and buyers of the iron and steel products in question. Consequently, the Respondent requested the rejection of the Revenue's stay application and the dismissal of the appeal.
3. Upon hearing both parties and examining the record, the Tribunal emphasized that the findings of the lower authority can only be challenged with substantial contradictory evidence. Despite the remand, the Revenue failed to present such evidence, leading to the dismissal of both the stay application and the appeal.
4. In concluding the order, the Tribunal addressed the Ld. Commissioner's statement regarding the burden of proof, emphasizing that the defense's success should not solely rely on demonstrating the weakness of the opposing party without discharging the burden of proof. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2008 (5) TMI 524
Issues: Condonation of delay in filing appeal and cross-objection under Central Excise Act.
In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise after the prescribed period, seeking condonation of delay under Section 35B(3) of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the delay was due to pending matters at various levels, including seeking clearance from the Committee on Disputes (COD). However, the Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed more than six years after the order, well beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal emphasized that the delay was not justified, even with the COD clearance obtained on a later date, as there is a distinction between filing an appeal and obtaining clearance. The Tribunal rejected the condonation of delay application, stating that the delay was too significant to overlook, and consequently dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Regarding the cross-objection filed by the Revenue, it was observed that the cross-objection was also time-barred, and since the appeal was dismissed, there was no need to consider condonation of delay for the cross-objection. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory timelines for filing appeals and cross-objections, highlighting that parties cannot take a casual approach towards compliance with the law of limitation. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-objection due to being time-barred, emphasizing the significance of timely compliance with statutory provisions in legal proceedings under the Central Excise Act.
-
2008 (5) TMI 523
Issues: Whether the assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit for Welding Electrodes and Gases used for repairs and maintenance of Plant and Machinery.
Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore considered the issue of availing Cenvat credit for Welding Electrodes and Gases used in maintenance of Plant and Machinery. The matter had been previously discussed in various judgments including India Sugars & Refineries Ltd., Jaypee Rewa Plant, Union Carbide India Ltd., Modi Rubber Ltd., Daya Sugar, Vikram Cement, Indian Seamless Metal Tubes Ltd., J.K. Cement Works, Texchem Corporation, and Medico Labs. After detailed consideration, the Tribunal upheld the plea of the assessees for grant of Cenvat credit in respect of Welding Electrodes and Gases used in maintenance of Capital Goods.
In the hearing, the Tribunal noted the judgment in C.C.E. v. Vasavadatta Cement Ltd. and found no grounds to distinguish it. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
-
2008 (5) TMI 522
Order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Classification of Brown Sugar - scope of SCN - Held that: - The Commissioner (Appeals) went beyond the scope of show cause notice, when he decided the classification of brown sugar under Chapter sub-heading 1701.39 as this was not the subject matter in the show cause notice. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not legal and proper - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2008 (5) TMI 521
Issues:
1. Appeal against penalty under Section 11AC and interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI concerned the imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and interest on duty under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The duty amount paid in September 2002 was related to clearances made in December 1999. The department issued a show-cause notice in September 2004, proposing to appropriate the payment towards duty, levy interest under Section 11AB, and impose penalty under Section 11AC. The original authority imposed a penalty equal to duty and directed the payment of interest from the date of goods removal to the date of duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, leading to the Revenue's appeal.
2. The grounds of the appeal were reiterated by the learned SDR. However, it was argued that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as all relevant facts were within the department's knowledge. The show-cause notice was issued more than two years after duty payment, making Sections 11AB and 11AC inapplicable. The counsel cited relevant case law to support this argument.
3. The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and agreed with the lower appellate authority. It was emphasized that before invoking Sections 11AB and 11AC, the department must establish that material facts were suppressed with intent to evade duty payment. Since the department accepted the duty payment in 2002, it was evident they had knowledge of the facts by then. Issuing the show-cause notice after two years indicated a lack of justification. The Tribunal found the respondents' case well-founded, supported by the cited case law, and upheld the lower authority's decision.
4. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the presiding judge, Shri P.G. Chacko.
............
|
9911796707
