|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 222 Records
-
2007 (7) TMI 481
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ional organization listed in the annexure to notification, for use in a project that has been approved by the Government of India and, a certificate from such an organization is required for availing the benefit of notification. The contention is that UNICEF is duly mentioned in the Annexure and the goods were supplied to UNICEF. Copies of invoices also on record to show that the goods were supplied on account of UNICEF to the medical Store, Government of Orissa, therefore, the goods are supplied to UNICEF, hence, only certificate from UNICEF is required and the same is produced, therefore, the demand is not sustainable. 4. emsp In view of the fact that the goods manufactured by the applicant and supplied to various organizations on account of UNICEF and necessary certificates were produced from UNICEF, therefore, the applicant had a strong case in their favour, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived. The stay petition is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court
-
2007 (7) TMI 480
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... are totally damaged are not used in the manufacture of new vehicle, therefore, the Commissioner has rightly denied the credit in respect of such parts. 6. emsp We find that provisions of Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules provides that where any goods on which duty has been paid at the time of removal thereof are brought to any factory for being re-made, refined, re-conditioned or for any other reason, the manufacturer shall state the particulars of such receipt in his record and shall be entitled to take credit of the duty paid as if such goods are received as inputs and utilize this credit in accordance with rules. In the present case, the applicant received damaged vehicles and due intimation was also given to the Revenue, therefore, as per the provisions of Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, prima facie the applicant had a strong case in their favour. Therefore, the pre-deposit of duty and penalty is waived. Stay petition is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 479
Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... 6 (Bom.) and the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Col-Tubes (P) Ltd. v. Collector - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 342 which was followed in Collector v. Kotak Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., which decision was upheld by the Apex Court in 1997 (90) E.L.T. A63 (S.C.), and the Tribunal rsquo s order in Bharat Containers (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur, 2006 (203) E.L.T. 416 holding that the cost of capping and cleaning charges is not includable in the value of aluminium collapsible tubes. When duty liability was not required to be discharged by inclusion of capping and cleaning charges the question of intention to evade payment of duty obviously cannot arise. We, therefore, agree with the appellants that the extended period of limitation is not available to the department in this case and since the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation, it requires to be set aside and we order accordingly. 4. emsp In the result we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 477
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... case as one relating to rebate, and hence I heard learned SDR and perused the records. I find that no mistake arises from the Tribunal rsquo s final order for the reason that the issue in dispute relates to the assessees rsquo claim for interest on delayed grant of rebate of excise duty on goods exported by them and, therefore, even though the claim relates to interest, it is traceable to rebate claim filed by the assessees. I, therefore, dismiss the application. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 475
Cenvat/Modvat - Duty paying document ... ... ... ... ..... o s Circular No. 441/7/1999-CX., dt. 23-2-99. The Board had directed that all pending cases be disposed Off in the light of the said Circular rdquo . It may be noticed from the above reproduced findings that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as correctly followed the Board Circular dt. 23-2-99 which directed the lower authorities to, ascertain duty paid character of the goods, receipt and consumption thereof in the factory premises of the respondents when the duty paying documents are defective. There is no dispute as to receipt and consumption of inputs. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. 2000 (121) E.L.T. 247 in favour of respondent. 4. emsp Accordingly, I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly followed the law as settled by the Larger Bench and the Board rsquo s Circular, hence the impugned order does not require any interference. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2007 (7) TMI 473
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Multiple appeals - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ature and not sustainable in view of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Seraikella Glass Works (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 497 (S.C.). This portion of the order has not been challenged by the Applicant Commissioner. We are of the view that after having come to the conclusion that the show cause notice was not sustainable, the Lower Appellate Authority should not have proceeded to decide the issue of classification as he has done in Para 10 onwards in his order. Hence, we set aside his order relating to the classification and direct the Original Authority to finalise the assessment and decide on the classification on merit in accordance with law and thereafter, recourse may be taken to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 if necessary, after finalisation of the assessment. The Department rsquo s Appeal No. 438/2003 is disposed off with the above observations. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.
-
2007 (7) TMI 470
Demand and interest - Warehoused goods - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... n by the Commissioner (Appeals) is in respect of the period when there was no such provisions under Section 61 of the Act on the facts of the present case. Section 28 provides that where duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, or when interest payable has not been paid, part paid, erroneously refunded, in such cases, the proper officer may issue notice for recovery. The present case is not a case of duty not levied, or short-levied or erroneously refunded. In the present case, the goods were imported, warehoused thereafter the importer after expiry of the warehoused period, had not come forward to take possession of the imported goods. Provision of Section 28 of the Customs Act is not applicable in such a case. There is no time limit prescribed under Sections 61 and 72 of the Customs Act for such release. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 467
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... ning to restoration of appeals in cases where there is default of pre-deposit was considered at length in the light of Supreme Court, High Court and Tribunals judgments in the case of Master Recording Co. (supra). The same was reconsidered again in the case of West India Steel Co. Ltd. and Ors. (supra) and Sri Dhanalakshmi Cloth Dyeing and Printing Works (supra). In terms of the ratio of these miscellaneous orders, the appeal can be recalled not withstanding the delay in filing the ROA application where entire amounts have been deposited in terms of the impugned order. In view of these judgments, the deposit made in present case is accepted and the Final Order No. 1322/2003 dated 30-9-2003 is recalled and the appeal No. E/826/2002 is restored to its original number by allowing the restoration application. Matter to come up for hearing on 10th September 2007. Revenue is barred from recovering the interest till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 465
EXIM - Export Oriented Units, export obligation - Advance DTA sales - Concessional rate of duty under Notification 2/95-C.E.
-
2007 (7) TMI 463
Demand - Show cause notice - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... nal hearing meant for the EOU and its partners were served upon the brother of the partner who acknowledged the same on the letterhead of the 100 EOU. Therefore, department is correct in its statement that all steps for effective service have been taken up. However, the fact remains that the appellants could not be heard and their defence to the case of the department is not on record. Interest of justice requires that case be decided afresh. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional Commissioner. The appellants have to collect the copy of the show cause notice and file their reply and appear before the Commissioner on the date fixed by him and the entire proceedings should be completed within a period of three months from the receipt of this order. Sufficient opportunity of hearing should be extended by the Commissioner to the appellants of being heard in their defence. Appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 462
Demand - Burning loss - Suppression of facts - Held that: - It is seen that entire case was made out on the basis of the record which was modified by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, there is no reason of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty - demand set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 461
Interest - Valuation - Held that: - it is not disputed by the appellant that there was a short payment. The quantum of short payment is not known as finalization takes place between the appellant and their customer at a later date. Section 4(3)(d) clearly provides that any payment in connection with the sale that could become payable at a later point of time shall be added to the transaction value - interest upheld - appeal dismissed.
-
2007 (7) TMI 460
Waste and scrap - Excisability - Held that: - both the lube oil waste, spent activated carbon and spent activated aluminia which had lost their original property and had become industrial waste cannot be treated as manufactured goods exigible to duty - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2007 (7) TMI 459
Demand - Rejected/Returned goods ... ... ... ... ..... s also stressed this very point. In the present case although the process of remaking was almost identical to the process of manufacture, it did not involve the degree of processing which was before the Tribunal in the two cited cases. On this ground I find that the Collector was correct in applying the ratio to the present proceedings. The benefit would continue to be given to the assessees until the existing ambiguity in the said Rule is resolved rdquo . It can be seen from the above-reproduced findings of the Tribunal rsquo s judgments that the provisions of Rule 173H are applicable even if the process amounts to re-manufacture as long as it does not become a manufacture out of the basic ingredients. 7. emsp Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and respectfully following the decisions of the Tribunal as cited above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in court on 17-7-07)
-
2007 (7) TMI 455
Recovery of dues - Adjustment from ... ... ... ... ..... predecessor at the time of such transfer or otherwise disposal or change . rdquo It can been seen from the above reproduced Section, that the amount of Government dues can be adjusted ldquo from any money owing to the person from whom such sums may be recoverable or due rdquo . These words of Section 11 would indicate that the adjustment of the Government dues of person should be done against the dues of a particular person. In this case the particular person will be the Centri Cast Division of M/s. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. situated at F-8, MIDC, Industrial Area Nagpur, to adjust the Government dues, (which has been disputed by Centri Cast Division) against the refund, which is due to the current appellant is not within the purview of the law has enacted under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. 6. emsp Accordingly, in view of the above findings, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. (Dictated in court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 452
Maintainability of appeal - Appeal by Department - review of order - sub-section (2) of Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - jurisdiction
-
2007 (7) TMI 451
Penalty - Imposition of - Interest - Shortage of Cenvat availed inputs ... ... ... ... ..... removal proved. 4. emsp In the light of the above, imposition of penalty under 11AC is not warranted. The penalty imposed on the authorized signatory for the same reasons is also not warranted. As regards the interest, I notice that it is a case of shortage of inputs and the duty involved on the shortage has been paid on the very next day of detection of shortage. By very nature, no presumption can be raised on which date the inputs were cleared (if at all cleared) and even if deemed to have been cleared it can be presumed to be the date of detection of shortage i.e. 4-2-1999. Since, the duty has been paid on 5-2-1999 itself, I do not see justification for confirmation of interest. 5. emsp In view of the above, while upholding the duty demand which stands paid on 5-2-1999, I set aside the demand for interest and set aside the penalties imposed on the appellant-firm and authorized signatory. 6. emsp Appeals are disposed of on the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 450
Stay application before Appellate Tribunal - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... the statutory period of limitation), is dismissed as infructuous for the reason that there is no time limit prescribed for filing of stay application and the time limit is only for filing of an appeal. ROM etc. The stay application would lie over for hearing to 19-7-2007. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 447
Demand - Limitation - Suppression ... ... ... ... ..... 997 and order although duty demand was proposed to be recovered. No appeal was filed by the department against the order of October, 1997 by which duty on yarn alone was confirmed and duty on tops was dropped. In this view of the matter, the appellants cannot be held to be guilty to any suppression with intent to evade payment of duty so as to apply extended period of limitation against them (finding of the Commissioner on the applicability of the extended period of limitation is that the assessee neither declared nor submitted the value of comparable goods nor furnished cost of production on tops cleared to sister concern from April 1997 to June 2000 in spite of repeated request by the department). 4. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we accept the contention of the appellants that the demand is fully time-barred and, therefore, set aside the same along with penalties. The impugned order is, thus, set aside and appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2007 (7) TMI 446
Settlement application - Maintainability of ... ... ... ... ..... plication. Similar view was taken by this Bench in the Rejection Order No. A-568/CE/07-SC(PB)-R dated 15-2-2007 in the case of M/s. Dadu Aqua Drinks (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and others and Rejection Order No. A-647/CE/07 SC(PB)-R dated 22-2-2007 in the case of M/s. Vichitra Prestressed Concrete Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Rashegaon, Peth Road, Taluka Dindori, District Nasik and others. 19. emsp In view of the above, the contention of the applicant that even though he did not file the returns/declaration during the relevant period but the applications should still be admitted because just before approaching the Settlement Commission, they have filed the returns for the past period is not tenable. Requirements of Clause (a) in First Proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Act are not at all met by the applicants. 20. emsp In view of non-fulfilment of the requirement under Clause (a) in the First Proviso to Section 32E(1) of the Act, the applications are rejected under Section 32 F(1) of the Act.
........
|
