|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 669 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 459
Issues:
1. Whether waste and scrap of capital goods/inputs are liable to excise duty.
2. Whether wear and tear and dismantling of inputs/capital goods entail emergence of a new product.
3. Whether duty, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant are sustainable.
Analysis:
1. The impugned order rejected an appeal by M/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., Plant-I, sustaining the original authority's decision to demand duty and penalty on waste and scrap of capital goods/inputs cleared by the appellant. The Commissioner held that waste and scrap arising from processing of inputs were liable to excise duty, along with interest under Section 11AB, due to non-payment of duty and non-compliance with central excise formalities.
2. The appellant argued that waste and scrap of Cenvat credit availed inputs/capital goods were not final products as defined in Rule 2(e) of CCR, 02, and should not be considered manufactured goods. The appellant cited case law to support the claim that duty was not payable on waste and scrap resulting from worn-out parts or dismantling of capital goods. The Tribunal found that dismantled machinery or worn-out inputs do not transform into manufactured goods, contrary to the original authority's decision.
3. After reviewing the case records and submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the goods in question were not manufactured products subject to duty. The Tribunal relied on the case law cited by the appellant to support its decision that worn-out machinery or inputs cleared as scrap should not be classified as manufactured goods. Additionally, a previous decision by the Tribunal in favor of the same appellant for a similar case further supported the appellant's position. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and declaring the demand of duty, interest, and penalty as unsustainable.
-
2008 (10) TMI 458
Issues involved: Conversion of DTA unit to 100% EOU, utilization of accumulated capital goods credit, dispute over duty payment, waiver of pre-deposit and stay recovery.
Conversion of DTA unit to 100% EOU: The appellants were initially operating as a DTA unit before being converted to a 100% EOU as permitted by the Development Commissioner. Upon conversion, they had accumulated capital goods credit in their CENVAT account. The Department objected to the utilization of this credit for duty payment on DTA clearances after the conversion.
Utilization of accumulated capital goods credit: The appellants utilized a portion of the accumulated capital goods credit for duty payment on their DTA clearances post-conversion. This action was contested by the Department, leading to a dispute that was brought before the Tribunal.
Prima facie case and legal precedent: After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found a prima facie case against the impugned demand. Reference was made to a specific case law, Stay Order No. 348/08 in the matter of M/s. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pondichery, which highlighted the applicability of Rule 17 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Tribunal noted that the Department cannot prohibit the EOU from availing CENVAT credit based on certain circulars.
Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery: In light of the above findings, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. It granted a waiver of pre-deposit and ordered a stay of recovery concerning the adjudged dues. This decision provides relief to the appellants in the ongoing dispute over the duty payment related to the utilization of the accumulated CENVAT credit.
-
2008 (10) TMI 457
Issues:
1. Duty demand confirmation based on lack of necessary certificate from specified Committee in Notification 8/04.
2. Dispute over investment certification for duty exemption under the notification.
3. Waiver of pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal.
4. Late intimation regarding engagement of Special Counsel for stay petitions.
Issue 1: Duty Demand Confirmation:
The appeal involved duty demand confirmation due to the absence of a necessary certificate from the Committee specified in Notification 8/04. The appellants argued that they had initially invested the amount for plant and machinery, with a provisional certificate issued by the Committee. However, the final extension of time was issued later, and the Committee clarified that no further certificate would be provided. The appellants contended that the Board's circular clarified that secure payment to the concerned agency would satisfy the investment condition. The Adjudicating Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, emphasizing the lack of a categorical certificate from the Committee. The Tribunal considered the provisional certificate, the secure payment made, and the Board's circular, finding a prima facie case for waiving pre-deposit until appeal disposal.
Issue 2: Investment Certification Dispute:
The dispute centered around the certification of investment for duty exemption under the notification. The appellants highlighted that the plant and machinery had been installed in their factory, informing the Adjudicating Commissioner and the State Government Secretary. They argued that the procedural condition of a certificate regarding installation should not deny them the exemption benefit. The Department supported the duty demand confirmation based on the absence of a categorical certificate from the Committee specified in the Notification.
Issue 3: Waiver of Pre-Deposit:
Regarding the waiver of pre-deposit during the appeal's pendency, the Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides. Given the provisional certificate, secure payment made, and the similarity of issues in other cases, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for all three appeals until their disposal.
Issue 4: Late Intimation of Special Counsel:
In the stay petitions related to other appeals, there was a mention of late intimation regarding the engagement of Special Counsel. Despite this, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement for those cases as well, considering the repeated adjournments and the similarity of issues with the main appeal. Both parties agreed to approach the Committee for inspection of the factory premises and certification of the investment claimed, with the liberty to fix a final hearing date post the Committee's certificate availability.
-
2008 (10) TMI 456
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "transaction value" under Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act regarding charges for pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services in the assessable value of cars.
Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over whether charges for pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services provided by dealers should be included in the assessable value of cars under the definition of "transaction value" in Section 4(3)(d) of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner had included these charges in the assessable value, leading to a duty demand. The appellant argued that these charges should not be included based on a previous decision in their favor. The key issue is the interpretation of the term "transaction value" and whether expenses towards servicing and warranty should be part of it.
The definition of "transaction value" in Section 4(3)(d) includes any amount that the buyer is liable to pay to or on behalf of the assessee in connection with the sale, which could encompass charges for servicing and warranty. The Commissioner's decision to treat these charges as part of the assessable value appears prima facie correct based on this definition. However, the appellant relied on a previous decision where it was held that charges not flowing directly or indirectly to the assessee should not be included in the assessable value. This interpretation was based on Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules, which requires the addition of the money value of any additional consideration flowing from the buyer to the assessee. Since the charges for pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services did not flow to the assessee, it was argued that they should not form part of the assessable value.
The Department's appeal against the previous decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on grounds of delay, not on merits. Due to the conflicting views, the Tribunal referred the matter to a Larger Bench to decide whether charges for pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services should be included in the assessable value of cars as per the definition of "transaction value" in Section 4(3)(d). Pending the appeal decision, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of dues and stayed the recovery of the amount. The case was scheduled to be placed before the President for the constitution of a Larger Bench for further deliberation on the issue.
In conclusion, the case revolves around the interpretation of the term "transaction value" and the inclusion of charges for pre-delivery inspection and after-sale-services in the assessable value of cars under the Central Excise Act. The conflicting views necessitated a referral to a Larger Bench for a final decision on this issue.
-
2008 (10) TMI 455
Cenvat/Modvat - removal of Capital goods after use - Held that: - the capital goods namely tools and dies were removed by the respondents after they had been used for some time - Rule 3(5) of CCR, 2004 did not apply to removals of worn-out capital goods. The respondents were not required to pay duty when the used capital goods were sold - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (10) TMI 454
Issues: Appeal filed by Revenue challenging duty demand on fatty acid produced during job work basis for refined oil.
1. Facts and Background:
The case involves appeals filed by the Revenue regarding duty demands on fatty acid produced during the conversion of crude vegetable oil into refined oil by M/s. Balaji Oil Industries (P) Ltd on job work basis. The demands were related to the duty found to be due on fatty acid, a by-product in the process of refining of vegetable oil. The original authority had restricted the demand to a normal period, considering the awareness of the department about the job work undertaken by Balaji.
2. Decision of Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the duty liability on the production of refined vegetable oil and fatty acid should be discharged by Balaji and not by the appellants. He vacated the demand confirmed by the original authority, stating that the respondents were not liable to pay duty on fatty acid as they had already discharged duty on the refined vegetable oil.
3. Arguments and Grounds:
In the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was contended that the respondents had suppressed the production of fatty acid and evaded duty on it, warranting a larger period for invoking the demand. The Revenue argued that the duty due on fatty acid should be imposed on the respondents, despite their duty payments for refined oil.
4. Judgment and Conclusion:
After considering the submissions and case records, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision that the duty on fatty acid produced during job work basis for refined oil was not payable by the respondents, as they had already discharged duty on the refined vegetable oil.
-
2008 (10) TMI 452
Issues:
Alleged shortage of steel wire rods leading to incorrect Cenvat credit reversal.
Analysis:
The case involved a show-cause notice alleging a shortage of steel wire rods in the appellant's factory, leading to the reversal of Cenvat credit. The department claimed that the shortage arose due to incorrect reading or loss of weight during transit, demanding the reversal of Cenvat credit and imposing a penalty. The original authority dropped the proceedings as the shortage was less than 1% and the duty paid on raw material was recovered from the appellant. However, the jurisdictional Commissioner reviewed the case and remanded it to rework the liability based on item-wise or invoice-wise pricing. The appellant argued that there was no stock verification, and the appellate authority erred in treating the shortage as 'deemed shortage'. The appellant contended that the negligible shortage over a long period should be neglected, citing relevant case laws.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on the entire duty paid for the inputs received, with all input quantities duly recorded. The department's case relied on records as no physical stock verification was conducted, making it challenging to determine any short-received quantity accurately. The show-cause notice admitted the shortage due to incorrect reading or weight loss during transit. The Tribunal observed inconsistencies in the department's case and concluded that the benefit of doubt should favor the assessee. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that negligible shortages should not lead to the denial of Modvat credit.
In the final decision, the Tribunal deemed the remand ordered by the Commissioner as futile, setting aside the Commissioner's order and upholding the original authority's decision. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, relevant legal principles, and the Tribunal's final decision, providing a comprehensive overview of the case.
-
2008 (10) TMI 451
Quantum of Redemption fine and penalty - import of old/used photocopiers - confiscation - Held that: - The goods were second-hand capital goods and the discretionary jurisdiction of authorities under the Customs Act in the matter of determining the quanta of fine and penalty was recognized and it was held that any order of this Tribunal could be interfered with only in circumstances in which it was demonstrated that such order was purely arbitrary, whimsical and resulting in miscarriage of justice. This principle laid down by the High Court has universal application in the sense that it would apply so much to cases of import of photocopier parts as to photocopiers themselves
-
2008 (10) TMI 450
Issues: Non-compliance with stay order and failure to file application for financial hardship as directed by the Hon'ble High Court.
In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, heard the matter where the applicants were directed to make a pre-deposit of a specified amount within 8 weeks, with a reporting compliance set for a later date. The applicants challenged the stay order, leading to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court directing them to file an application regarding their financial hardship within 3 weeks. The High Court emphasized that the tribunal should consider the plea of financial hardship and permitted the applicants to submit all relevant material. Failure to file the application within the stipulated time would result in the impugned order operating fully. Despite submitting a set of documents, including written submissions and financial documents, the applicants did not file the required application for financial hardship within the specified time frame. The Tribunal found that the written submission did not meet the procedural requirements for an application as per the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, lacking the necessary verification. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the applicants' failure to adhere to the High Court's directive and the procedural rules governing the submission of applications in such cases.
This judgment highlights the importance of complying with court directives and procedural rules in legal proceedings. It underscores the significance of timely and accurate submission of required documents and applications as mandated by the court, especially in cases involving financial hardship considerations. The ruling serves as a reminder for parties involved in legal matters to strictly adhere to court orders and procedural guidelines to ensure a fair and just resolution of their case.
-
2008 (10) TMI 449
Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess found goods and imposition of penalty.
2. Neutralization of short found grey fabric against excess found grey fabric.
3. Malafide intent for not recording raw material and finished goods in statutory records.
4. Option for redemption of seized goods.
5. Reduction of penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs.
Analysis:
1. The proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confiscation of excess found goods and imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order confiscating the excess processed fabrics and grey fabric, along with imposing a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellant.
2. The Tribunal found that there was enough evidence to show that excess found fabric was manufactured from grey fabric not recorded in statutory records, indicating a clandestine purpose. The appellant's plea to neutralize short found grey fabric against excess found grey fabric was rejected due to discrepancies in lot numbers, suggesting a deliberate attempt to evade duty payment.
3. Referring to a previous ruling, the Tribunal highlighted that failure to account for goods could lead to confiscation and penalty, even without mens rea. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant acted with malafide intent by not recording raw material and finished goods in statutory records, indicating an intention to evade duty payment.
4. While agreeing that absolute confiscation was not necessary, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellant should have been given an option to redeem the seized goods by paying a redemption fine. However, due to the fabric's deterioration over six years, the option for redemption was deemed ineffective. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs considering the full confiscation of goods worth Rs. 15 lakhs, depriving the appellants of ownership.
5. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with the reduced penalty amount pronounced in court on 6-10-2008. The decision aimed to balance the penalty imposed with the value of the confiscated goods, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the case.
-
2008 (10) TMI 448
Issues Involved: The judgment involves issues related to differential duty under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act, cross-examination of witnesses, application of evidentiary materials, and denial of opportunity to be heard.
Differential Duty and Penalties: The appellants, including M/s. Sri Kanaka Durga Castings (SKDC), were aggrieved by the demand of differential duty and penalties imposed under Sections 28(2) and 112(a) of the Customs Act. The case involved the import of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus., with conditions regarding usage and production of end-use certificates. Investigations revealed diversion of imported material without meeting the conditions, leading to proposed recovery of duty and penalties on the importer and other involved parties.
Cross-Examination and Adjudication: M/s. SKDC requested cross-examination of witnesses, including high sea sellers and Customs House Agents, during the adjudication process. While some witnesses were cross-examined, the change in adjudicating authority led to a denial of permission to cross-examine the remaining witnesses. The appellants argued that the evidentiary materials and crucial documents were not adequately examined by the adjudicating authority, leading to grievances regarding the fairness of the proceedings.
Remand and Natural Justice: The Tribunal found that the Commissioner had not properly considered the submissions and applications made by the parties, especially regarding the cross-examination of witnesses and examination of evidentiary materials. Due to the denial of opportunities to present their case effectively, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of following the principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
Conclusion: The judgment highlighted the significance of fair adjudication, proper consideration of evidence, and adherence to procedural fairness in matters involving differential duty, penalties, and cross-examination of witnesses. The decision to remand the case aimed to ensure a thorough review of the submissions and evidentiary materials, upholding the principles of natural justice in the legal process.
-
2008 (10) TMI 447
Issues involved: Determination of country of origin for imported goods, reliance on expert opinion, discrepancies in documentation, acceptance of certificate of origin.
The case involved the import of cloves declared to be of Srilankan origin, but found to be of Madagascar origin upon testing. The original authority confiscated the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, citing lack of standardized parameters for determining origin and discrepancies in documentation. The Commissioner accepted the importer's certificate of origin and found fault with the investigating officers for not verifying its genuineness. The appeal filed by the Revenue challenged this decision.
The Revenue argued that the Senior Scientist's opinion, markings on gunny bags, and discrepancies in documentation supported the original authority's decision. They emphasized the rules of determination of origin and the Assistant Commissioner's role in verifying conditions regarding origin. The Revenue contended that the Senior Scientist's opinion should not have been rejected.
The Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the original authority's decision based on the designated authority's certification of the goods as Srilankan origin. The Commissioner did not address all grounds raised by the respondents, but emphasized the acceptance of the certificate of origin issued by the designated agency. The appeal did not sufficiently explain the rejection of the certificate based on expert opinion and highlighted the varying properties of agricultural produce based on region.
The judgment dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting the certification by the designated authority and the lack of justification to reject it. The judgment highlighted the importance of following prescribed rules for determining origin and emphasized the acceptance of the certificate issued by the designated agency. The decision upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s ruling in favor of the importer.
-
2008 (10) TMI 446
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeal) based on Tribunal's order, inclusion of cost of packing material in assessable value, condonation of delay in filing appeal.
Issue 1: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeal) order
- The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeal) dated 08-3-2006, received in the Tribunal on 25-8-2006, along with an application for condonation of delay.
- The appeal was filed as the Commissioner's order was based on a Tribunal order where a similar issue in favor of the respondents was decided, but a subsequent Supreme Court decision highlighted the inclusion of packing material cost in assessable value.
- The Revenue argued for a liberal approach in condonation of delay, citing previous Supreme Court judgments, but the Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay and subsequently rejected the appeal as well.
Issue 2: Inclusion of cost of packing material in assessable value
- The Revenue contended that the cost of packing material should be included in the assessable value based on a Supreme Court decision in the case of CCE, Allahabad v. M/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.
- The Revenue believed they had a strong case on merit and that certain facts claimed by the respondents were incorrect, emphasizing the need to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court decision.
- However, the Tribunal, after considering the submissions, rejected the Revenue's application for condonation of delay, as a similar application related to refund claims of the same appellant on the same issue was previously rejected, leading to the rejection of the appeal as well.
Issue 3: Condonation of delay in filing appeal
- The Revenue sought condonation of delay in filing the appeal, arguing for a liberal approach and citing Supreme Court judgments to support their contention.
- The Tribunal, after detailed consideration, rejected the application for condonation of delay, as a previous application related to the same appellant and issue was also rejected, leading to the rejection of the appeal.
*(Pronounced in the open Court)*
-
2008 (10) TMI 445
DEEC licence - Marble - Import of marble - Board Circular No. 40/2002-Cus. dated 11-7-02 - Held that: - Having sent the sample to CRCL and having received the report which is in conflict with the report of Geological Survey of India, the refusal to permit retesting and refusal of cross-examination are not justified - appeal allowed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 444
Rebate - Quantum of - Export of watches and clocks - N/N. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - Held that: - Exemption N/N. 10/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 is applicable in respect of watches and clocks of retail price not exceeding ₹ 500/- per piece. Even though export price of watches may be less than ₹ 500/- as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) but not confirmed by the ld. Advocate during the hearing. Rupee is currency of India, retail price cannot be affixed on the export goods. Therefore, the exemption Notification cannot be applied to watches sold in other countries.
Since Indian Government has no control over sale price in respect of exported goods, it is clear that exemption notification is inapplicable to exported goods. Whether the appellants are encashing the Cenvat credit or not is not relevant, what is relevant is to be seen whether the contention of the Revenue is legally valid and correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 443
Issues:
1. Duty liability on clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods prior to and after 1-4-2000.
2. Availment of Modvat credit on capital goods.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57-S of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Duty liability on clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods prior to and after 1-4-2000:
The case involved a dispute regarding duty liability on the clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods by the respondents. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of duty before 1-4-2000 but dropped the demand for clearances on or after 1-4-2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal. The main contention was whether duty was payable on such clearances before and after 1-4-2000. The Tribunal examined the issue and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in a similar case, which clarified that waste and scrap of capital goods are not subject to excise duty independently. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to drop the demand after 1-4-2000 and set aside the demand prior to that date based on the lack of evidence of Modvat credit availed by the respondents.
Issue 2: Availment of Modvat credit on capital goods:
The Revenue argued that the respondents availed credit on capital goods and thus were liable to pay duty on the clearance of waste and scrap of capital goods under Rule 57-S before 1-4-2000. However, the Tribunal found that the respondents had not availed Modvat credit on capital goods received prior to 1994. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the onus to prove the availment of Modvat credit lies with the Revenue. Since the Revenue did not refute the respondents' submission that the capital goods were received prior to 1-9-94, the demand of duty before 1-4-2000 was rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 57-S of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of Rule 57-S in light of the case law and held that waste and scrap of capital goods are not subject to excise duty independently of the provisions of Rules 57S and 57AB. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that duty is only levied when Modvat credit has been availed on capital goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the machinery items in question were installed before the Modvat credit scheme came into existence, thus the conditions for invoking Rules 57AB and 57S were not fulfilled.
In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the findings related to duty liability on waste and scrap of capital goods and the availment of Modvat credit on capital goods. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles and precedents to support its decision.
-
2008 (10) TMI 442
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether the value of software imported along with equipment is includible in the assessment for duty purposes.
Issue 1: Inclusion of software value in assessment
The appellants, leading service providers for GSM Mobile Telephones, imported hardware and software from a foreign supplier. The question was whether the value of the software should be added to the equipment's value for assessment. The appellants argued that the software was not embedded and was separately priced. They cited legal precedents and technical opinions to support their position. The Special Counsel contended that the software was embedded, and investigations revealed collusion to undervalue the hardware. The Tribunal noted the complexity of the issue and the conflicting decisions but leaned towards the appellants' position. They ordered a full waiver of duties/penalties pending further hearing.
Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.
-
2008 (10) TMI 441
Issues Involved: Determination of brand name ownership for exemption under Notification No. 8/2000, financial hardship claim by the applicant.
Brand Name Ownership Issue:
The judgment dealt with the issue of whether the name "rollin" qualifies as a brand name for the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 8/2000. The tribunal found that the name "rollin" was being used by A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and held that it qualifies as a brand name, regardless of whether it was registered. The evidence indicated that the brand name was owned by Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd., and the applicant had used this brand name for clearing goods manufactured by them, making them ineligible for the exemption.
Financial Hardship Claim:
The applicant had pleaded financial hardship, stating that M/s. Anubhav Enterprises had been closed since a certain date and had no cash balance. The tribunal considered this claim but noted that Shri Anil Jain, the applicant, held positions and interests in other concerns and was practically running three group concerns. Despite the financial hardship claim, the tribunal directed M/s. Anubhav Enterprises to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a specified timeframe, with the balance amount of duty and penalty waived subject to this deposit. Recovery of the waived amount was stayed pending the appeal's disposal.
-
2008 (10) TMI 440
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi granted a stay on the Commissioner's order setting aside a corrigendum to the original order, allowing expansion claim from 20-3-2007. The Tribunal found the corrigendum necessary for completeness and stayed the refund to the respondent until appeal disposal. (Citation: 2008 (10) TMI 440 - CESTAT, New Delhi)
-
2008 (10) TMI 439
Issues Involved:
Eligibility of Modvat credit on centrally air conditioning plant as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis:
The issue in this appeal pertains to the eligibility of Modvat credit on a centrally air conditioning plant installed in the weaving department of the assessee's factory as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner disallowed the credit of Rs. 76,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the Modvat credit availed in the air-conditioning plant in principle, leading to this appeal by the Revenue.
The key contention revolves around the interpretation of Rule 57Q and whether the air conditioning plant can be classified as capital goods under this rule. The presiding judge noted that capital goods, as defined by Rule 57Q, are machines or machinery used for producing or processing goods or bringing about a change in any substance for the manufacture of final products. It was observed that the air conditioning plant primarily serves the purpose of temperature control and does not directly participate in the manufacturing process or bring about any change in substance for the final products. As such, the plant does not meet the criteria to be considered as eligible capital goods under Rule 57Q.
Furthermore, the judge referenced specific clauses and notifications to support the decision. Heading 84.15, under which the air-conditioning plant falls, is not covered by the relevant clauses of Rule 57Q, indicating that items used for refrigerating and air-conditioning applications are excluded from the category of eligible capital goods. The judge also cited precedents where similar equipment, like air-conditioners and humidification plants, were deemed ineligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57Q due to their limited role in the manufacturing process.
Based on the above analysis, the judge set aside the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstated the Order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was pronounced in court on 6-10-2008.
............
|
9911796707
