|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 495 of 495 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 17
Central Excise – Demand of interest –Assessee undertook to pay amount with interest and upto 31.3.2003, last payment was made –Demand raised by Deptt. on 19.8.2005, in this view demand could not be held to be beyond reasonable time –Omission of Sec 3A does not wipe out liability of assessee for the period during which scheme was in operation
-
2006 (10) TMI 16
Issues:
1. Whether the conversion of vat powder into vat paste amounts to the manufacture of a new excisable product.
2. Whether the appellants are entitled to SSI exemption.
3. Whether penalty imposition on the appellants and others is justified.
Analysis:
1. Conversion of Vat Powder into Vat Paste:
The case revolved around the conversion of vat powder into vat paste by the appellants. The Show Cause Notice alleged that this process amounted to manufacturing a new product classified under Chapter Heading 3204.29. The Commissioner confirmed duty imposition, but the appellants contended that the conversion did not constitute manufacturing based on legal precedents and clarifications from the CBEC. The appellants argued that the vat powder purchased was already standardized/formulated dye, as evidenced by invoices, and the conversion process did not change the essential nature of the product. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing various judgments and clarifications that supported the view that such a conversion did not amount to manufacture. Therefore, the duty imposition was set aside.
2. SSI Exemption Entitlement:
The Show Cause Notice also raised concerns about the appellants' entitlement to SSI exemption, particularly regarding the sale of standardized dyes under the brand name of another entity. However, since the primary issue of duty imposition was resolved in favor of the appellants based on the non-manufacturing nature of the conversion process, the question of SSI exemption became moot.
3. Penalty Imposition Justification:
The Commissioner had imposed penalties on the appellants and others under various provisions for alleged duty evasion. The appellants challenged the penalties, arguing that since the duty liability itself was not valid due to the non-manufacturing nature of the conversion process, the question of penalties did not arise. The Tribunal, after determining that no duty was payable, concluded that the penalties were not justified. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified that the conversion of vat powder into vat paste by the appellants did not amount to manufacturing, based on legal precedents and clarifications. This decision led to the dismissal of duty imposition and subsequent penalties, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants.
-
2006 (10) TMI 15
Issues:
1. Availment of modvat credit on Furnace Oil for manufacturing exempted goods.
2. Interpretation of Rule 6 (1) and Rule 57AD of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001.
3. Applicability of the Division Bench decision in Navsari Oil Products Ltd. case.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The appeal challenged the order setting aside the duty confirmation and penalty imposition related to the availment of modvat credit on Furnace Oil for manufacturing exempted goods. The respondent contended that Rule 6 (1) excludes fuel from its application, thus justifying their resistance to the show cause notice.
Issue 2: The learned Commissioner (Appeal) highlighted that Rule 57AD and Rule 6 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules specifically exclude inputs, including fuel like RFO, LDO, and Furnace Oil, used in the manufacture of both dutiable and exempted goods. The Commissioner's order emphasized that the appellant was not liable to reverse the credit taken on these inputs when used as fuel for exempted goods production.
Issue 3: The judgment referred to the Division Bench decision in the Navsari Oil Products Ltd. case, which established that modvat credit is not required to be reversed for inputs used as fuel in manufacturing exempted goods. The case discussed the exception created for fuel as an input and concluded that the appellant was not liable to reverse the credit or pay duty proportionate to the use of furnace oil in the manufacture of goods cleared without payment of duty.
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the correctness of the impugned order based on the Division Bench decision's applicability. The judgment reaffirmed that the exclusion of inputs used as fuel for both dutiable and exempted goods production justified the respondent's position regarding the availment of modvat credit on Furnace Oil.
-
2006 (10) TMI 13
Central Excise –The process of manufacturing of insta whitening system is not a new product, hence not excisable as held earlier –Tribunal ruling in the assesses own case is bound on the Commissioner when Tribunal earlier order had not been challenged or set aside –Revenue can not re-open the issue once it is settled by an earlier judgment
-
2006 (10) TMI 12
Service Tax – Security agency provided services on commercial terms and registered under Punjab Ex-serviceman Act, 1978 - Service tax to be paid on gross amount received from the clients for the services rendered in connection with security to be treated as value for levy of service tax
-
2006 (10) TMI 11
Service Tax – Cable operator – Respondent petitions rejected on the ground that definition includes service to any person by cable operator including Multi Systems Operator(MSO) – Service tax not levied twice in the case of Multi Systems Operator – MSO liable to service tax
-
2006 (10) TMI 10
Service Tax – Photography service – Issue of extent of levy of service tax in composite contract settled by S.C. - Alternative remedies available to petitioners at the stage of show cause notice, high court should not interfere in excise of writ jurisdiction – Question raised to be considered and decided by competent authority
-
2006 (10) TMI 9
Customs - Radio terminals transport the already converted digital speech from BTS equipment to the BSC through outdoor units. These radio terminals are solely and principally used with the BTS and therefore they rightly qualify as BTS ancillary equipments to be eligible to the benefit of notification no. 11/97 as amended w.e.f. 2-6-1997.
-
2006 (10) TMI 8
Central Excise – Plastic packaging of retail product – Benefit of Notification No.8/2003-CE dt. 1.3.2003 as amended by Notification No.8/2006-CE dt. 1.3.2006 is admissible though joint venture unit is not a SSI unit – Assessee can accumulate credit of CVD & SAD till complete clearance of Rs.100 lakhs
-
2006 (10) TMI 7
Central Excise –Valuation in case of Captive consumption to be assessed on the basis of prescribed Rules-Any demand without correct valuation is not sustainable-Cost of production will have to be determined based on the actual cost of production at the factory of production alone and not the cost of production of textile units-Matter remanded
-
2006 (10) TMI 5
Service Tax – Cable operator – Demand – Chartered Accountants certificate and balance sheet not considered as additional evidence for determination of receipts of cable operator – Demand correctly confirmed on amount of Rs. 3 lakh received as subscription
-
2006 (10) TMI 4
Issues:
1. Service tax liability on gross receipts for consultancy services.
2. Application of penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Invocation of longer period for recovery of service tax.
4. Exclusion of reimbursable expenses from service tax.
5. Interpretation of relevant notifications exempting service tax on foreign exchange receipts.
Analysis:
1. Service tax liability on gross receipts for consultancy services:
The appellants were engaged in providing Project Coordinating Consultancy Services (PCC) for a highway improvement project. The dispute arose regarding the service tax liability on the gross receipts received by the appellants. The Revenue contended that service tax was payable on the entire amount received from the client, while the appellants argued that certain services provided did not fall under the category of Consulting Engineering Services. The Tribunal analyzed the scope of services rendered and concluded that not all services were taxable under the category of Consulting Engineering Services. The appellants were found to have correctly paid service tax on their liability, and the demand for differential service tax was held to be unsustainable.
2. Application of penalties under Section 76 and Section 78:
The Original Authority had imposed penalties under Section 76 and Section 78 of the Act without prior permission of the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the penalties imposed were excessive and disproportionate, indicating a careless exercise of statutory powers. While acknowledging the purpose of penalties, the Tribunal emphasized the need for exercising proper judgment to avoid the mockery of the judicial delivery system. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
3. Invocation of longer period for recovery of service tax:
The lower authorities had invoked a longer period for recovery of service tax, alleging non-filing of ST3 Returns and suppression of facts. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had diligently filed their ST3 Returns, providing complete information on amounts received from clients, including reimbursable amounts. The Tribunal concluded that the longer period could not be invoked as there was no evidence of non-disclosure or suppression of facts, thereby rendering a major portion of the demand time-barred.
4. Exclusion of reimbursable expenses from service tax:
The appellants argued that certain reimbursable expenses received from the client were not subject to service tax, citing a DGST Circular and relevant case law. The Tribunal agreed that reimbursable expenses were not taxable and should be excluded from the service tax calculation. The lower authorities' failure to properly scrutinize the information contained in the ST3 Returns led to an incorrect imposition of tax on reimbursable amounts.
5. Interpretation of relevant notifications exempting service tax on foreign exchange receipts:
The Tribunal examined the applicability of Notification Nos. 21/2003-ST and 6/99-ST, which exempted service tax on payments received in convertible foreign exchange. It was found that the lower authorities had not properly considered the implications of these notifications. The Tribunal held that the demand for differential tax was not sustainable both on merits and limitation, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked critical aspects of the case. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
-
2006 (10) TMI 3
Issues Involved:
1. Whether completion of assessment proceedings is a sine qua non for issuance of notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Validity of show cause notices issued prior to the finalization of provisional assessments.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 11-A and Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether completion of assessment proceedings is a sine qua non for issuance of notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The core issue in this appeal is whether the completion of assessment proceedings is necessary before issuing a notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Section 11-A provides for the recovery of duties not levied, short-levied, or erroneously refunded. The Tribunal found that the impugned show cause notices were illegal as they were issued during the pendency of provisional assessments. The Court opined that a proceeding under Section 11-A cannot be initiated without completing the assessment proceedings. The relevant date for initiating proceedings under Section 11-A is the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment, as per Sub-section (3)(ii)(b) of Section 11-A.
2. Validity of show cause notices issued prior to the finalization of provisional assessments:
Several show cause notices were issued to the Respondent for differential duty and undervaluation during the period when provisional assessments were pending. The adjudicating authority initially rejected the contention that these notices were invalid because they were issued before the finalization of provisional assessments. However, the Tribunal later set aside these notices, finding them illegal. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the provisional assessment must be finalized before any show cause notice for differential duty can be issued.
3. Interpretation and application of Section 11-A and Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
Section 11-A allows for recovery of duties within six months from the relevant date, which, in the case of provisional assessments, is the date of adjustment after final assessment. Rule 9B governs provisional assessments, allowing goods to be provisionally assessed and cleared, with final assessment to follow. The Court noted that provisional assessments are made when the assessee cannot produce necessary documents or information. The final assessment adjusts the provisionally assessed duty against the finally assessed duty, determining any deficiency or excess. The Court concluded that the Tribunal correctly interpreted these provisions, affirming that the show cause notices issued during provisional assessments were invalid.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Tribunal's finding that the show cause notices issued during the pendency of provisional assessments were illegal. The Court reinforced that proceedings under Section 11-A can only be initiated after the final assessment is completed, adhering to the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
-
2006 (10) TMI 2
Central Excise – Furniture – Petitioners contended that storage cabinets, kitchen counters, conference tables erected at site of customers are fixtures and not furniture and being not movable such items are not excisable – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal to pass fresh order
-
2006 (10) TMI 1
Service Tax – Advertising services – Appellant rendered services of making of hoardings, sign boards and signages and design of signages, their colour schemes etc. provided by Uttaranchal Tourism Authority – Such activities not covered within ambit of advertising agency and not attracted to service tax
....
|
9911796707
