|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 219 Records
-
2007 (6) TMI 396 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund - Re-credit ... ... ... ... ..... 0-1996. (c) The original authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,55,010/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 3,000/-. (d) The Commissioner (Appeals) taking note of the fact that the credit note issued by the suppliers of the appellant towards trade discount did not have any effect on the duty originally paid on such inputs and taking note of the fact, that the credit has been got debited by excise officials without actually conducting the investigation at the supplier rsquo s end, allowed the appeal by observing as follows ldquo However, in the instant case the credit has been got debited by the excise officials by adopting an unlawful manner as discussed in foregoing paras. In view of this factual background of the case, provision of Section 11B of the Act are not applicable. rdquo 4. emsp No valid grounds have been adduced with the findings and reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the light of the above, the appeal is rejected. (Dictated and Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 391 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand, interest and penalty - Waste and scrap - Clandestine removal alleged - Scraping of over-aged tyres
-
2007 (6) TMI 390 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Advance licence, domestic procurement ... ... ... ... ..... dated 6-1-1992 did not affect the transaction already concluded between the appellants and M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. under valid permission of the respective central excise authorities. Both parties followed the procedure laid down under Rule 191BB r/w Notification No. 33/90-C.E. (N.T.). Hence the demand of duty raised on the appellants in respect of the nylon yarn cleared by them to M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. cannot be sustained. There is no justification for the demand of duty in respect of nylon tyre cord fabrics either. This item cleared by the appellants to M/s. Apollo Tyres Ltd. was admittedly used by the latter in the manufacture of tyres, which were admittedly exported in discharge of export obligation under the advance licence (DEEC). On these facts, the demand raised on the appellants in respect of the nylon tyre cord- fabrics is also unsustainable. 4. emsp In the result, the appeal stands allowed. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 18-6-2007)
-
2007 (6) TMI 388 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Supervision charges - Recovery thereof - Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... were within their L-4 premises. Hence, no supervision charges were recoverable from them. It has also been contended that the supervision charges, if any, were recoverable only if the supervision, whatsoever, was provided beyond the normal office hours i.e. other than from 10 00 AM to 06.00 PM. Since the departmental officers had provided the requisite supervision within normal office hours, no supervision charges could possibly be recovered from them. rdquo 6. emsp From the above re-produced finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) it is very clear that on merits the case of respondent is squarely covered by the CBEC Circular and the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the same. 7. emsp Accordingly, I find that the impugned order is well reasoned one and does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the revenue is rejected. Cross-objection filed by the respondent being in support of the impugned order is also disposed off accordingly. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 386 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of conveyance - Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... hat there was no deliberate attempt to violate the procedural conditions, if any. There is no finding that the HSD oil was not removed as ship store bunker and Nirmal Bhushan was not eligible to obtain such duty free bunkers. There is no revenue implication. The confiscation arrived at cannot be upheld either of the 25 MT of bunker or of the vessels or/and there is any case for penalty under Section 117. 6. emsp The goods (25 MT bunker) were cleared from a bonded warehouse at Kandla for eventual supply to Nirmal Bhushan by and on appropriate document. The goods were exported from Kandla. There is no evidence that they have been re-imported into India for eventual unauthorized re-export. Therefore confiscation of the goods under the provisions of Section 113 and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act cannot be upheld. 7. emsp In view of the findings, the confiscations, redemption fine and penalties are set aside and appeals are allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 15-6-2007)
-
2007 (6) TMI 385 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Liability of Interest - Area-based exemption - Refund claim under N/N. 56/2002-C.E. - Held that: - the whole procedure has to be viewed in proper perspective, transcending from the confines of the norms applicable in the case of normal or general procedure under the law. Due to explicity of the procedure as laid down under the notification the confines of the procedure as applicable generally under Rule 8 and Section 11 need to be interpreted to accommodate the assessee and not to penalize him for no fault of his. In my opinion, it is high time that the human face of the administration gets revealed in such queer moments and not the iron clause (if not claws) that may end up harassing the honest tax-payers - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 382 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Departmental clarifications ... ... ... ... ..... n the ground that the Section 11A of the Central Excise Act has been amended retrospectively by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000. However, we find that the retrospectively amended Section 11A only provides for demand of duty short levied/non-levied on account of prior approval, acceptance or assessment. We are of the view that the said amendment does not override the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M. Bag Manufacturers (cited supra) rendered by a Bench of three Hon rsquo ble Judges on the specific issue of the validity of Section 37B Circular. Hence we find no merit in the Revenue rsquo s Appeal and we dismiss the same. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.)
-
2007 (6) TMI 381 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Maintainability of departmental appeal ... ... ... ... ..... e appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable as it was without jurisdiction, is required to be accepted for the reason that the direction to prefer an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was given to the Assistant Commissioner while the orders of adjudication were passed by the Additional Commissioner who is an officer higher in rank to the Assistant Commissioner, and the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s order in CCE, Nagpur v. Lloyds Metals and Engg. Ltd. - 2003 (159) E.L.T. 1144 (Tribunal) 2003 (59) RLT 225, holding that appeals filed by Assistant Commissioner against orders of Additional Commissioner are not maintainable as the direction could only have been given to an officer equal in rank to the officer passing the adjudication order, is squarely applicable. The Larger Bench has also held the same view in a subsequent decision. I, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the appellants herein and allow the appeals. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 380 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Yarn - Single yarn captively consumed in manufacture of doubled yarn ... ... ... ... ..... e notices - except the fifth show cause notice which partially covered the period of May, 1995 - they all related to a period subsequent to 18-5-1995 and hence question of extending the exemption would not arise in them. However, a perusal of the show cause notices would indicate that no specific mention has been made therein on the following proviso added vide Notification No. 84/1995 dated 18-5-1995 ldquo Provided that the exemption contained hereinabove relating to Serial No. 1 or 2 shall not apply to clearances of yarn from a factory having facilities (including plant and equipment) for producing single yarn. rdquo 6. emsp It was, therefore, not the case of the Revenue that the exemption was swept away by virtue of the said proviso. In view of this, no useful purpose would be served by a remand as is being suggested by the Learned Departmental Representative. The appeal filed by the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 12-6-2007)
-
2007 (6) TMI 378 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Cash refund ... ... ... ... ..... position to utilise the refund granted in credit account. In the present case levy of additional duty under Additional Duties of Excise (Textile and Textile Articles) Act was abolished and the goods were exempt from payment of such excise duty w.e.f. 9-7-2004 and, therefore, even though the assessees were held to be entitled to take credit by an order dated 5-4-2005, such an order could not the implemented for the reason that levy of additional duty on textile and textile articles already stands abolished from a prior date i.e., from July, 2004. Following the ratio of the Tribunal rsquo s order cited supra and noting that the issue of provisional assessment was not considered by the Larger Bench in the case of Gauri Plasticulture (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 199, which also held that there was no bar to cash refund if the assessee was unable to utilise the credit, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 377 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing - Condonation of ... ... ... ... ..... 3.7 emsp The Apex Court in the case of UOI v. Tata Yodogawa Ltd. - 1998 (38) E.L.T. 739 (S.C.) refused to accept the Government rsquo s explanation given to seek condonation on the ground of inter-sdepartmental delay. 4. emsp On careful consideration, we find that all the citations referred to by the learned JDR clearly apply to the facts of the case. The notices had been served on the Managing Director personally under Mahazar. Even after the knowledge of the impugned order, there is delay of 65 days, which is also not accepted. The latches and negligence are clear on record on the part of the appellants. The learned JDR refers to all the judgments of the various benches, which are applicable to the facts of the case. The Apex Court judgment will also apply to the facts of the case. There is no ground to condone the delay. The condonation applications are dismissed and as a result, the stay applications and appeals are also dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 376 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Interest - Rate of interest - Delay in payment of duty - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... in the light of the language of the second proviso to Rule 8(3) which provides that till such time the amount of duty outstanding and interest payable thereon is paid it shall be deemed, that the goods in question on which duty and interest are outstanding, to have been cleared without payment of duty. I, therefore, accept the contention of the Revenue that the rate of interest levied by the lower appellate authority, namely, 24 per annum incorrect and the interest is required to be levied 2 per month or Rs. 1,000/- per day whichever is higher. I also see force in the contention of the Revenue that although the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the duty demand upon the respondents he has set aside the order of the original authority who confirmed the demand, and allowed the appeal of the assessee. I, therefore, confirm that duty demand is required to be sustained. 4. emsp In view of the above discussion I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 375 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Export oriented unit ... ... ... ... ..... Lower Appellate Authority should have remanded the matter to the Original Authority for curing the defects pointed out by him. Instead, he has straight away allowed the appeal of the Respondents which is not in order. 2. emsp Hence, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Original Authority who shall consult the concerned Development Commissioner as required under Circular dated 28-11-1995 and thereafter give adequate opportunity of hearing to the Respondents and pass a fresh order, if necessary. The Department rsquo s appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 374 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Recovery - Duty liability ... ... ... ... ..... the recovery of the amount is beyond the scope of Excise Act and Rules. Learned Counsel would point out that the Central Excise Act and Rules contain clear provisions regarding duty liability and recovery. It is his contention that the revenue authority should proceed under those provisions and cannot cast responsibility for recovery on strangers. 6. emsp There is merit in the appellant rsquo s contention. Section 11 of the Central Excise Act relates to ldquo recovery of sums due to Government rdquo . This Section specifically covers ldquo amount required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under Section 11D. There is no provision for recovery through third parties. Instead of following the legal provisions, the present order is diffusing liabilities and responsibilities all around. This is not permissible. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the direction concerning the appellant in the impugned order. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 373 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Oil - Crude Palm Oil (Edible grade) - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ra) has clearly held that when samples have been tested after three months of its drawal, then it would not serve any purpose and therefore, the opinion regarding the same of Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi is required to be accepted. In the present case, in an identical situation the report of the Port Health Officer was in assessee rsquo s favour and in all similar imports in terms of the cited judgments the relief has been granted to the importers. The Chemical Examiner rsquo s report relied by the Commissioner is vitiated, as the samples have been tested after a lapse of 9 months from its drawal and also in terms of a similar order rendered by the Chennai Bench cited supra. In view of these judgments in assessee rsquo s favour which are noted in the Stay Orders extracted supra, the impugned order is not legal and proper and the same is set aside by allowing these appeals. (Operative portion of this order was pronounced in open Court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2007 (6) TMI 372 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Judicial discipline - Remand order - Strictures against Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal. His attitude towards the higher judicial forum is not at all healthy. The observations and insinuations are totally unwarranted. He has dealt with the de novo adjudication proceedings as if he was dealing with an appeal against the order of the Tribunal dated 27-4-1992. 12. emsp The order of the Commissioner having been passed in violation of the specific directions contained in the remand order dated 27-4-1992 and with- out making available the author of crucial document for cross-examination and with out making available the relied original document for perusal cannot be sustained and therefore the same is set aside and the appeals are followed with consequential relief. 13. emsp We feel that the casual and objectionable way the order of remand passed of the Tribunal was dealt with deserves to be brought to the kind notice of the Chairman, CBEC, for his information and appropriate action and accordingly a copy of the order is endorsed to him. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 370 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... he appellants by reducing the amount, after taking into consideration the payment already made. Moreover, the second show cause notice has not been adjudicated upon and no Order has been passed on the same and hence, the appellants have no ground to either agitate against the same or take support from the said notice which has obviously been issued by mistake. 6. emsp As regards the argument of the learned Advocate that this is not a case deserving imposition of such a high amount of penalty, we find force in his submission. However, since the duty demanded as per the revised ACP has also not been paid subsequently, some penalty is imposable. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty of Rs. 2,04,478.05 (Rupees two lakhs four thousand four hundred and seventy-eight and five paise) to Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) only. The interest is payable on the amount not paid in accordance with law. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
-
2007 (6) TMI 369 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Tubes - Welded Austenitic Stainless Steel Tubes - Exemption - Held that: - The Tribunal, in the case of Automatic Electric Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2004 (8) TMI 242 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], has held that the benefit of exemption under N/N. 108/95-C.E. is available to a sub-contractor when M/s. BHEL is the main contractor of an approved project. The fact that there was a contract between the main contractor and the sub-contractor will ensure that supplies made eventually reach the project site - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (6) TMI 367 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand - Incentive ... ... ... ... ..... the benefit of Notification No. 130/83-C.E. dated 27-4-1983. However, the Lower Appellate Authority has given no finding in this regard as to whether or not the appellants are eligible or ineligible for the benefits under the said notification. In view of fact that there is no finding against the appellants in this regard, we do not feel it necessary to go into this question at the stage of second appeal. 2. emsp We also find that the Lower Appellate Authority has referred to a Circular dated 8-9-1994 issued by Board stating that the sugar factories are not allowed to retain the incentive in respect of levy of sugar. In view of the fact that in the present appeal we are concerned with incentive in respect of non-levy sugar we are of the view that the said Circular has no application in this case. 3. emsp In view our findings as above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefit to the Appellants. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Order - Intimation of another officer’s decision to assessee is not an order ... ... ... ... ..... office, Meerut-I for necessary action. Yours faithfully, Sd/- For Triveni Engg. and Ind. Ltd. Authorised Signatory Sd/- Superintendent, Customs and Central Excise, Range-Deoband. Division Saharanpur 3. emsp The learned Counsel would point out that the rejection of the appellant rsquo s claim for remission of duty in the present case is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant rsquo s own case vide Final Order Nos. 1446 to 49 of 06 dated 5-9-06 in Appeal No. 2168, 3138, 3735 of 05 - SM and E/2141 of 06 and other orders. 4. emsp The impugned order is hardly any order. One officer is merely intimating that another officer has rejected the application. An order should speak for itself, stating the reason for passing the same. This order is therefore, not sustainable. 5. emsp In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand and the Commissioner is directed to pass a proper order on the assessee rsquo s application. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
........
|
