|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 189 Records
-
2003 (8) TMI 587
... ...
... ... ..... resins have been, in fact, manufactured by the respondents, but have been shown to have been manufactured in the factory of M/s. RGS Industries, is factually incorrect, inasmuch as M/s. RGS Industries were a legal separate entity engaged in the manufacture of resins. He has also observed that the show cause notice for the period from 1.11.86 to 30.4.87 has been issued on 19.9.88. Inasmuch as M/s. RGS Industries have been filing monthly returns and the Revenue was aware of the existence of the same, the notice is barred on limitation. 4. In their memo of appeal, the Revenue, though challenged the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits, has not submitted anything on the point of limitation. There is a conclusive finding by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the Revenue on the point of limitation, which remains unchallenged by the Department. As such, I am of the opinion that the Revenue's appeal is required to be rejected on this short point. Ordered accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 586
... ...
... ... ..... no reason to interfere with the majority view expressed. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 577
... ...
... ... ..... ugust, 2003 in Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000 2003 (156) E.LT. 161 (S.C.) etc. this appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 576
... ...
... ... ..... Pasayat, JJ. ORDER Appeals admitted.
-
2003 (8) TMI 571
... ...
... ... ..... ne the delay. Application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2003 Delay condoned. We see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 555
... ...
... ... ..... herefore, formal service of notice is dispensed with. We see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The appeals and Special Leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 554
... ...
... ... ..... despite the authorities themselves have granted. permission to the appellant authorizing M/s. Lamina Suspension Products Ltd. to manufacture products on behalf of the appellant as per Act, Rules and Notification? 2. We have heard Sri M.V.Seshachala, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing, Counsel appealing for the respondent. 3. We are of the view the question of law raised in this application arises for consideration in as much as it relates to interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which defines the word “manufacturer”. 4. Therefore, in the fight of the discussion made above, we are of the view, an order is required to be made directing the Tribunal to refer the question of law referred to above. The Tribunal is directed to set out the statement of facts and also the questions of law referred to above. 5. In terms stated above, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
-
2003 (8) TMI 553
... ...
... ... ..... has been set aside by the tribunal. As on today, there. is no order supporting the petitioner in the matter of refund made over to him. Learned counsel is unable to show any provision of law with regard to retention of money particularly in the light of reference application. Annexure-J is fully justified on the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client was made to believe that no duty is leviable. Learned counsel also says that question of law has referred to the tribunal and in these circumstances, some instalment facility may be granted to him. In the result, Annexure-J is upheld. Petitioner is directed to submit at appropriate representation before the second respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order with regard to grant of instalments. If any such representation is filed respondents are directed to consider the same on merits and grant instalments in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 549
... ...
... ... ..... ence in the method of computation, a duty demand of about ₹ 47,000/- has been confirmed. 3. We have perused the records and have considered the submissions made by both sides. We feel that the whole controversy is academic and is not relevant for the purpose of computing the assessable value. The relevant legal provision Section 4(4)(d)(ii) states that “value does not include.............., the trade discount allowed in accordance with the normal practice of the wholesale trade at the time of removal.......”. Therefore, what is relevant is the trade discount “allowed” by the assessee. This necessarily means, “allowed” according to the method of computation adopted by the assessee, the correctness or otherwise of computation being not relevant. Viewed in this legal perspective, the findings reached and duty demand confirmed in the impugned orders are not sustainable and are required to be set aside. We do so and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 547
... ...
... ... ..... osite mill and the final product at the third phase is dutiable. According to us, decision of a learned Single Member in Kailash Auto Builders Ltd. vs. CCE (A), Bangalore 2001 (47) RLT 950 (CEGAT-Ban.) relied on by the respondent-assessee is more akin to the facts of the present case. It was held therein that there is no time limit for utilising the credit and merely because there was no dutiable items, which were required to be cleared, on payment of duty on the date when the capital goods credit was taken, that credit could not be denied. We, therefore, agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessee is entitled to avail the credit on the capital goods installed during implementation of second phase of the project when the composite mill had reached its third phase and where the processed grey fabrics are dutiable items. 4. In the result, the appeal fails and it stands dismissed. Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 23.8.2002.
-
2003 (8) TMI 543
... ...
... ... ..... f final product is eligible for the Modvat. It is well settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as in the case of Jaypee Rewa Cements vs. CCE, MP reported 2001 (46) RLT 491 (SC) 2001 (133) ELT 3 that the inputs need not be utilized within the factory premises for the purpose of availing the benefit of credit. It was also held therein that explosives used for the manufacture of intermediate product vis. Lime stone which in turn was used in the manufacture of final product is entitled for Modvat Credit. The Central Board of Excise and Customs has also accepted the said judgment and issued Circular clarifying the position vide Circular No. 637/28/2002-CX dated 8.5.2002 reported in 2002 (50) RLT M27 . In this view of the matter the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment clearly applies to the facts of the present case and in this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order I uphold the same and reject the Revenue appeal. Dictated and pronounced in open Court.
-
2003 (8) TMI 537
... ...
... ... ..... cases. The learned Counsel pointed out that this issue remains settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sinkhai Synthetics an Chemicals Private Limited vs. CCE, Aurangabad, 2002 (143) ELT 17 (SC). 5. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by both sides. It is not in dispute that, in both cases, original payments of duties were Under Protest. The Apex Court has ruled that the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply to refunds in cases where original payments of duty are under protest. Therefore, the orders passed by the lower authorities cannot be sustained. The appeals are accordingly, allowed, with consequential relief to the appellants. 6. The appellants' rightful claims to 'rebate' have eluded them for over a decade by now. The lower authorities are accordingly, directed to make payments of the refund amounts with utmost expedition. Operative part of the order was pronounced in the open Court.
-
2003 (8) TMI 536
... ...
... ... ..... g that duty is demandable for the extended period. (3) Whether mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, and penalty under Rule 173Q is imposable in this case and whether interest can be demanded under Section 11 AB of the Act. We have held above that the appellants cannot be alleged to have suppressed the fact from the department in the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also held that mens tea cannot be alleged against the appellants and it cannot be said that there was intent on the part of the appellants to evade payment of duty. Therefore, we set aside the order of imposition of penalty both under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q, and so also the order of demand of interest under Section 11 AB of the Act ibid. 9. In view of our above analysis and finding, the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. 10. In the result, while the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of merits, the appeal filed by the assessee-appellants is partially allowed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 531
... ...
... ... ..... rfere with the order under challenge. The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2003 (8) TMI 530
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 460
Confiscation and penalty - Accountal of goods ... ... ... ... ..... the redemption of the goods found in the truck as well as unfinished goods found lying in the factory premises of the appellants, has been imposed by the authorities below. But, in view of the discussion made above, that only confiscation of the finished goods found lying in the truck, and not the unfinished goods could be made, the redemption fine is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) taking into account the quantity of the goods and their value. Similarly, the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellants No. 1 under Rule 173Q of the Rules, in the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, is reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (rupees fifteen thousand only). However, the penalty imposed on appellants No. 2 of Rs. 10,000/- does not require any reduction, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order stands accordingly modified in the above terms. 5. emsp The appeals of the appellants stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2003 (8) TMI 459
Production capacity based duty - Compounded Levy Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... never be able to get the actual production on the basis of application of the formula as notified in the Notfn. No. 24/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 25-7-97. We hope that your honour will be pleased to consider all the factors responsible for production and determine the ACP accordingly in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 3A of Central Excise Act, 1944, taking into account our performance in the past. 4 emsp We are, therefore, awaiting for the orders of your goodself and hope reasonable ACP will be determined and communicated to us without any delay. Yours faithfully, For M/s Keshav Nilu Steel (P) Ltd. Sd/ Authorised signatory rdquo Compounded levy scheme as notified did not provide for taking into account ldquo availability of raw materials, uninterrupted power supply, labour, finance etc. rdquo while fixing annual capacity of production. 6. emsp In the above stated facts and circumstances, it has to be held that the present appeal lacks legal basis. It is, accordingly, rejected.
-
2003 (8) TMI 458
Cenvat/Modvat - Deemed credit ... ... ... ... ..... ed as a ldquo Hot or Cold-rolled Flat product, rolled from ingots or Slabs or Sheet Bars or produced by cold reduction of Coil, in rectangular cross-section of thickness exceeding 5 mm but not exceeding 100 mm, and a width of 600 mm and above and supplied in straight lengths. rdquo The goods, in question, do not conform to the above, as the thickness does not exceed 5 mm. Therefore the explanation of the appellants that the description and chapter heading shown in the traders invoices is a mistake, is acceptable. Further it is pertinent to note that the invoices/challan of the manufacturer viz. SAIL, do not show any chapter heading or sub-heading for the goods in question and therefore the explanation that the traders showed the wrong description and wrong chapter heading in their invoices is highly plausible. 3. emsp In the light of the above, I hold that the appellants are entitled to deemed credit on the goods in question, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2003 (8) TMI 457
Cenvat/Modvat - Rate of credit ... ... ... ... ..... y the Revenue is that in terms of the above said notification, more than 10 adv. credit could not be taken on the value of the inputs received by the respondents from IOC, had been, in my view, rightly not accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is quite evident that Notification No. 5/94-C.E. (N.T.) expired on 28-2-1999. Therefore, the restriction imposed under that Notification of allowing credit only 10 adv. on the price of the inputs received by an assessee/manufacturer, expired on 28-2-1999. The respondents received the inputs in question after that date and in the invoices issued by the IOC while clearing the goods, the rate was also mentioned as 15 adv. Therefore, the respondents having discharged the duty at that rate while receiving the inputs, had been rightly allowed the credit at that very rate. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is upheld. 4. emsp The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2003 (8) TMI 456
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying documents ... ... ... ... ..... e invoice, but for availing that he is required to satisfy and fulfil the conditions laid down in Rule 57G of the Rules. He cannot as a matter of right claim straightway the credit on the original invoice without proving the loss of the duplicate copy. It is well settled that when a particular act is required to be done in a particular matter under the law/rules, it has to be performed in that very manner. The law provides the availment of Modvat credit to an assessee in the first instance on a duplicate copy of the transport and not on the original one. The credit on the original copy, by the assessee, can be taken only after proving the loss of the duplicate copy. That being the position, the appellants had been rightly disallowed the credit on the original invoice, for having failed to prove the loss of the duplicate invoice. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid and the same is upheld. 7. emsp The appeal of the appellants is dismissed.
........
|
