|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 1052 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1133
Penalty - classification - authorized person of the assessee had accepted the liability and debited the duty as soon as the same were informed – Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in not imposing the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 taking note of the fact that the respondents paid duty voluntarily, no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue hence rejected
-
2011 (4) TMI 1132
Demand of duty and penalty on the ground that Appellant manufactured and cleared goods without payment of duty - Appellants were clearing goods to the railways in respect of certain quantity of goods the Appellants were not paying duty. The demand is confirmed after taking into consideration such clearances - Contention is that the Appellants are manufacturing the goods in question as well as also got goods manufactured from various job-workers as the job-workers are independent manufacturers hence on such goods no duty is being paid by the Appellants. It is also submitted that Appellants were trading in respect of some goods which were duly reflected in their balance sheets - Revenue recorded the statement of five persons and as per the statements the goods were not manufactured on job-work basis however the same were manufactured as hired labourer. The Appellants asked for cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority and the same has been denied – Held that:- order passed without affording an opportunity of cross-examination is violation to the principles of natural justice, Appeals are disposed of by way of remand
-
2011 (4) TMI 1131
CHA - whether CHA is responsible for all acts & omissions of their employee in the transaction of business as an agent - only allegation is that he produced a false 12th pass certificate on the basis of which the appellant took him in his employment and H-Card was issued to him by the customs – Held that:- just for production of false 12th pass certificate by his employee, the order of forfeiture of the security to the extent of Rs. 55,000/- does not prima facie appear to be correct. The impugned order is, therefore, stayed. Stay application is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1130
Cenvat credit – manufacture - whether blending of imported superior kerosene oil with domestically produced kerosene oil so as to raise the smoke point to 18 mm would amount to manufacture or not – Held that:- activity of blending imported kerosene oil with the domestically produced oil so as to make it marketable as kerosene as per BIS Standard: 1459-1974 would amount to ‘manufacture’. The assessee would be entitled to cenvat credit on the imported oil of the additional duty of customs paid thereon subject to satisfaction of the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules as it stood at the relevant time, no merit in the Department’s appeals and the same are dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1129
Waiver for pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand and penalty - bogus invoices - Held that:- appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case in their favour and as such it is the Department, which has a strong case against them. As regards the conduct of the appellants, the nature of the allegations against them, which prima facie appear to be supported by concrete evidence on record, are of very serious nature and amount to a massive fraud, this is not a case for total waiver from the requirement of predeposit, In the application only a bald statement has been made that the applicant is facing financial hardship and no supportive documentary evidence was filed along with the application, no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal, appeal fails and is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1128
CENVAT credit - denied on MS slotted racks which was being used for storing material, in factory premises – Held that:- MS slotted racks is nothing but a storage system of raw material and as held by this Tribunal in the case of Sonai Engineering [2010 (3) TMI 514 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] that storage system being used for storing raw material by the assessee is an integral part of the activity of manufacturing and is directly or indirectly involved in the process of manufacturing. It is not disputed that these racks are not being used for storage and raw material. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for CENVAT credit on these MS slotted racks as they are being used for storage of raw material which is an integral part of the activity of manufacture and is involved in the process of manufacture, order set aside and appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1127
Review applications - condonation of delay beyond 180 days - Amendment of Section 35-G., 2009 specifically confers power on the High Court to condone delay beyond the period of 180 days, if the High Court is satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not filing the same within the said period, in the case of VIP Industries Ltd. (2010 - TMI - 202571 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - Central Excise), both the applications are allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1126
Demand of duty - non-inclusion of value of steel scrap in assessable value - stay order the appeal filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected for non-compliance with the requirement of Section 35F of Central Excise Act, 1944 – Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the case on merits and rejected the appeal because of non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, matter remanded Commissioner (Appeals), appeal allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (4) TMI 1125
Cenvat credit – Refund - appellants reversed the CENVAT credit under protest. After one year when no show-cause notice was issued and when no intimation regarding the offence committed by them, the appellants took back the amount of CENVAT credit reversed by them in the CENVAT account and intimated to the department – Held that:- reversal mde under protest therefore refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation, stay petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside as far as penalty is concerned, duty demand is upheld which will be reversed with interest and the refund claim filed by the appellants will be considered favourably within one month from the date of filing of refund claim
-
2011 (4) TMI 1124
Cenvat credit - Whether assessee is not liable to reverse the availment of cenvat credit in support of the goods destroyed for which he claimed compensation from the Insurance Company – Held that:- Merely because the Insurance Company paid the assessee the value of goods including the excise duty paid, that would not render the availment of the cenvat credit wrong or irregular, assessee has paid the premium and covered the risk of this capital goods and when the goods were destroyed in terms of the insurance policy, the Insurance Company has compensated the assessee. It is not a case of double payment, appeal are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1123
Penalty - Cenvat credit – reversal - order passed by the Tribunal which held that the assessee is not liable to reverse the cenvat credit in respect of the inputs which were purchased prior to 1-8-2004, the day from which an exemption was granted, from payment of excise duty in respect of final products, notification came to be issued on 9-4-2004 granting exemption in respect of the final products and consequently, from 1-8-2004, the day from which the notification came into force, the assessee was not entitled to cenvat credit. However, as on 1-8-2004, the assessee held inputs and semi-finished goods in stock. The revenue proceeded against the assessee invoking the proviso of Section 11A and proposed demand for irregularly availed cenvat credit and interest thereon. Penalty was also proposed - Held that:- till 1-3-2007, the assessee was entitled to benefit, of the cenvat credit in respect of inputs contained in the work in progress and semi finished products. The said amendment is prospective in nature, the period is anterior to 1-3-2007, which has no application, decision in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1122
Whether Tribunal was correct in interpreting the term "Input Services" as enumerated in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and allowing the various ineligible Input service Tax credit, which are not covered or not remotely connected with the manufacture of the final products – Held that:- Activities relating to business and any services rendered in connection there with, would form part of the input services. The medical benefits extended to the employees, insurance policy to cover the risk of accidents to the vehicle as well as the person, certainly would be a part of the salary paid to the employees. Landscaping of factory or garden certainly would fall within the concept of modernization, renovation, repair, etc. of the office premises. At any rate, the credit rating of an industry is depended upon how the factory is maintained inside and outside the premises. The Environmental law expects the employer to keep the factory without contravening any of those laws. That apart, now the concept of corporate social responsibility is also relevant. It is to discharge a statutory obligation, when the employer spends money to maintain their factory premises in an eco-friendly, manner, certainly, the tax paid on such services would form part of the costs of the final products, Tribunal was right in holding that the service tax paid in all these cases would fall within the input services and the assessee is entitled to the benefit thereof, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1121
Cenvat credit - catering services – Held that:- merely because these services are not expressly mentioned in the definition of input service it cannot be said that they do not constitute input service and the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit, under the scheme of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the service tax paid on all those services which the assessee has utilized directly or indirectly in or in relation to the final product is entitled to claim the credit, decision against the revenue and in favour of the assessee, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1120
Whether process of slitting of HR Coils amounted to manufacture – Held that:- in the case of Rajpurohit GMP India Ltd., (2008 - TMI - 31169 - SUPREME COURT) , slitting and cutting of steel sheets does not amount to manufacture, appeal filed by the Revenue rejected
-
2011 (4) TMI 1119
Demand of interest - whether interest under Rule 173(G)(1)(d) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is payable where the duty has been paid through CENVAT Credit account as directed by the department during the period of withdrawal of fortnightly payment facility and subsequently the said amount is paid from PLA - Held that:- in the case of Noble Drugs Ltd. (2007 - TMI - 49051 - CESTAT, WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI) during period of forfeiture of facility of payment of duty on fortnightly basis, an assessee can discharge duty liability either out of PLA or by utilizing CENVAT credit and failure on his part to do so would not attract, interest and penalty, no merit in the impugned order same are set aside and the appeals are allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1118
Classification – SSI exemption - manufacture of 'connectors with wire' which was classifiable according to them under CETH 8536.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (Tariff). The department took a view that the product is classifiable under CETH 8544.00 of the Tariff – Held that:- in the case of Union Connectors Pvt. Ltd. (2008 - TMI - 31950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI) , product similar to the one manufactured by the respondent is classifiable under CETH 8536.90, registration was provisional and the product was not listed. The Notification does not require final approval or final registration but requires only registration. It is not the case of the Revenue that provisional registration was cancelled. Consequently, it is also not the case of the Revenue that Director of Industries did not find it appropriate to indicate the name of the product in the certificate, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected
-
2011 (4) TMI 1117
Duty demanded with interest and a penalty - imposed on the ground that the respondents had manufactured various goods at their work site and cleared the same for their use at Thane Creek Bridge work site - contention of the Revenue is that the exemption under Notification No. 5/98-CE and Circular dated 18.5.99 are not applicable to the goods manufactured by the respondents at site since the same was available only in respect of CETH 68.07 and 7308.50 whereas the goods manufactured by the respondents fall under other chapters – Held that:- Show-cause notice did not even allege manufacture at site, appeal filed by the Revenue is on a totally different ground vis-`-vis the issues raised in the show-cause notice, appeal filed by the Revenue rejected
-
2011 (4) TMI 1116
Cenvat credit - assessee claimed that cenvat credit was not liable to be reversed while clearing used capital goods on which no central excise duty was attracted – Held that:- appellant submits that mere keeping the capital goods and putting them to same use is not enough to exclude the requirement of reversing cenvat credit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (for short “the Rules”) as the said provision applies if the goods are as such, goods were not cleared in the same position but after having been used and in such situation Rule 3(5) of the Rules will not apply, appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1114
Demand of duty under the provisions of Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - appellants availed Modvat credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of exempted goods, on being pointed out, the appellants reversed the amount of 8% on the post clearance - It was observed that the amount reversed by the appellants @ 8% of the value of the goods in terms of the Rule 57CC was being recovered by them from their buyers – Held that:- appellants are not required to pay any amount under Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, order is set aside, the appeal is allowed [Unison Metals Ltd., (2006 - TMI - 49045 - CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI)]
-
2011 (4) TMI 1113
Related person - whether purchaser, who had purchased the products manufactured by the two companies and sold it in the market has to be treated as a 'related person - appellants had made a submission that M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. had separate land, factory premises, water connection, telephone connection and separate staff, none of these aspects has been considered in the impugned order - both M/s. C.M. Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. C.M. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd. have sold all their goods to M/s. Madhuvan Metals Pvt. Ltd. and they had supplied raw materials and gave some advance, but the matter had not been dealt with sufficient details, stay petition allowed and matter remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals)
............
|
9911796707
Advanced Search 
