|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 190 Records
-
2008 (10) TMI 733
... ...
... ... ..... ON hearing counsel the Court made the following Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw the petition. Pr ayer made is accepted. The special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2008 (10) TMI 701
... ...
... ... ..... x Court in the case of Triveni Engineering & Industries Limited v. CCE reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 273 (S.C.) held that in the present case the marketability test has not been fulfilled and, therefore, no excise duty is leviable on the sugar factory manufactured out of duty paid parts and accessories. 3. In our opinion, the question of law raised in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Triveni Engg. & Inds. Limited (Supra). No question of law arises in this appeal. Hence, rejected.
-
2008 (10) TMI 677
... ...
... ... ..... d delay. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we would not like to interfere with these findings in exercise of the powers under that provision. Any interference on our part in the facts and circumstances of this case would amount to substituting our view in place of the views expressed by the Tribunal. That would not be an appropriate course of action. Consequently, we decline to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. All the applications along with it are also dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 674
Time limitation - Held that: - The tribunal has held that the show-cause notices issued by the authorities were barred by limitation because during the period from October 1985 to September 1989 there were decisions of the tribunal in favour of the assessee - appeal rejected.
-
2008 (10) TMI 664
CENVAT credit - inputs - case of the Revenue is that as the inputs are used in the manufacture of final product which attracts Nil rate of duty, therefore, respondents are not entitled for taking credit - Held that: - the manufacturer is eligible to take credit in respect of input credit of duty paid on inputs which are used in the manufacture of final product being exported in respect of the fact that final products are otherwise exempted - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (10) TMI 661
... ...
... ... ..... econd proviso cannot be applied to the present case and the interest is not leviable for the period prior to the amendment of the Section 11AB. 4. The learned SDR submits that since they have not paid the duty for the previous period, the interest can be charged for the period prior to the amendment to the Section 11AB. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We notice that the duty demand involved in this case is for the period prior to the amendment to the Section 11AB. Therefore the argument raised by the learned Counsel that the interest is not leviable for the period prior to the amendment to the Section 11AB is justified. It is hereby ordered that in view of the second proviso to Section 11AB, no interest liability would arise on the duty amount which became payable prior to the date (i.e. on 11.5.2001) of amendment to the Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pronounced and dictated in the Court.
-
2008 (10) TMI 641
... ...
... ... ..... assessee. If that be so, we find that the some ingredients would apply for holding the demand to be barred by limitation. 5. Tribunal in case of Punjab Electricity Board Vs. CCE 1989 (44) ELT 340 (Tribunal), Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Collr. of C.E., Aurangabad 2000 (125) ELT 477 (Tribunal), has held that setting aside duty under Section 11AC is indicative of the fact that extended period is not invocable in as much as there was no malafide on the part of the appellant. As such, we hold that the demand is also barred by limitation. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals filed by the assessee with consequential relief to them. 6. Revenue’s appeal is against that part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has set aside the penalty upon the assessee. In as much as the appellants appeals stand allowed by us, Revenue s appeal is required to be rejected. We order accordingly. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 640
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee and against the Revenue by the Supreme Court in a case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs v. MDS Switchgear Ltd.(2008(229) E.L.T. 485(S.C.)). The said Judgment is pointed out with a view to bring home a position in law which reads thus - “A quantum of duty already determined by the jurisdictional officers of the supplier unit cannot be contested or challenged by the officers in charge of recipient unit”. 2. Similar is the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal. Hence, on the own showing of the learned Counsel for the Appellant no interference with the impugned Order is called for. In the result, the appeals stand dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 634
... ...
... ... ..... making pre-deposit, it would serve ends of justice if the orders dated 27.03.2008 and 16.07.2008 made by Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal respectively are quashed and set aside and the petitioner is granted an opportunity to comply with the order dated 12.03.2008 made by Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, in the event the petitioner makes pre-deposit of a sum of ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) on or before 14.11.2008 the appeal filed by the petitioner before Commissioner (Appeals) shall stand restored to file of Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the said appeal on merits, without being influenced by any observations made by the Tribunal in the order of 16.07.2008. Needless to state that Commissioner (Appeals) shall pass the order in appeal after compliance being reported by the petitioner on or before 14.11.2008 and after granting an opportunity of hearing. Subject to the aforesaid modification the petition stands disposed of.
-
2008 (10) TMI 633
... ...
... ... ..... an earlier period, goods cleared from the appellant’s depot in identical manner to consignment agent were held to have been correctly assessed to duty by the assessee and demand of differential duty was set aside vide Final Order No. 1088/08, dated 1-8-2008 2009 (239) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal) passed by the Coordinate Bench at Bangalore in Central Excise Appeal No. 1440/2000 (Carbonandum Universal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai). The case considered by the Coordinate Bench has not been distinguished before us. 2. In the result, following the cited precedent, we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 631
... ...
... ... ..... dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merits.
-
2008 (10) TMI 627
... ...
... ... ..... decided against the Department by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. ITC Ltd., 2008 (224) E.L.T. 226 , to which one of us (K. Raviraja Pandian, J.) was a party, as well as in another Division bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in the case of Union of India v. Grasim Industries Ltd., 2006 (204) E.L.T. 230 . 3. emsp As the questions of law involved in this petition have already been decided against the Department in the above said judgments, the direction sought for against the Department to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Chennai to refer the questions of law for determination does not arise. Hence, the R.C.P. is dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 597
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent is entitled to refund of ₹ 10,83,216/- as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld by the Tribunal?
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal are justified in holding that there was no unjust enrichment even though the respondent removed/cleared the goods without indicating the element of Excise Duty in their sales invoice, contrary to Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that:- Reliance on provisions of Section 12A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, cannot carry the case of appellant any further. The said Section requires that every person who is liable to pay duty of excise on any goods shall, at the time of clearance of the goods, prominently indicate in all the documents relating to assessment, sales invoice, etc., the amount of such duty which will form part of the price at which the goods are to be sold. On a plain reading, the phrase “at the time of clearance of the goods” cannot be read to mean removal of goods from the depot to their further destination, but can only mean removal of goods from the manufacturing unit in the first instance. In the facts of the present case, the record reveals, and there is no dispute as to the said fact, that at the time of clearance of the goods, the invoice in question carried the details of excise duty component separately qua the price of the goods manufactured.
In the circumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded can any legal infirmity be found in the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, in absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (10) TMI 596
CENVAT credit - capital goods - job-work - Held that: - It is not the case of appellant-Revenue that even M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited had claimed credit for the same capital goods which were supplied by M/s. Pidilite Industries Limited to respondent-assessee - it is apparent that credit is available to a manufacturer or producer of final product, which means excisable goods manufactured or produced and such credit is for the duty paid on any inputs or capital goods received in the factory after the prescribed date. Admittedly, the capital goods in question were received in the factory of the respondent-assessee and were used for the purposes of manufacturing final product which is an excisable item - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 572
CENVAT credit - tax paid on the services received even prior to the registration - Held that: - the credit will not be available even before the date of registration to enable the input service distributor to take credit.
-
2008 (10) TMI 566
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Exemption to Naptha for manufacture of fertilizers ... ... ... ... ..... htha has been procured duty free has been used for the manufacture of fertilizers. Prima facie, the appellants have a very strong case on merits. Therefore, the demand of duty and the imposition of penalty does not appear to be proper. In any case the entire issue can be examined in depth at the time of final hearing. As Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case, both in terms of merit and also limitation, we grant full waiver of the duty/interest demanded and also the penalties imposed. The matter may come for hearing on 21-7-2008. rdquo 6. emsp In view of the facts being same, the appellants are eligible for availing the benefit of stay of the impugned order from recovering the amounts. Hence, the stay application is allowed granting waiver of pre-deposit and staying the recovery till the disposal of the appeal. The appeal to be linked with the appeal No. E/860/2007 pending in the Tribunal for hearing on 17th November, 2008. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2008 (10) TMI 564
Issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the Circular issued by Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, bearing No. 563/59/2000-CX, dated 21st December, 2000 which circular is binding on the Department.
-
2008 (10) TMI 562
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessee rsquo s letter dt. 9-8-01 informing the Revenue that no duty would be collected by them from their customers and the same is being absorbed by them awaiting final order of Tribunal. Revenue in their appeal memo have not contested the above findings and have not advanced any arguments or reasons to rebut the above findings of Commissioner (Appeals). It is held in the same decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in case of Allied Photographics India Limited that the fact of non-passing of duty incidence to the customers can be established from other evidence. As such, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not granted relief to the respondent only on the ground of uniformity of price but also by taking into account the appellant rsquo s letter dt. 9-8-01. Reference to balance sheet further corroborates the above stand of the assessee. 9. emsp As such, we find no merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal and reject the same. (Pronounced in Court on 8-10-2008)
-
2008 (10) TMI 561
Remission of duty - Fire accident - denial on the ground that the said raw material were received by the appellant without payment of duty against CT-3 certificate and the same has not been utilized in the manufacture of final product, which was required to be exported and as such, the condition of N/N. 1/95-C.E, dt. 4-1-95 is not satisfied - Held that: - decision of the Tribunal in case of M/s. Ginni Filaments Ltd. [2000 (10) TMI 118 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], followed, wherein rejection for remission of duty in respect of duty free procured raw material by a 100% EOU by the lower authorities on the identical ground was not upheld - there is no dispute about the destruction of the goods in fire and by adopting the ratio of the above decisions, remission of duty has to be upheld - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (10) TMI 559
Penalty for short levy or non-levy of duty - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... s been imposed. We have already upheld the penalty imposed on Shri Pradeep S. Mehta and set aside the penalty on Shri Bhumish M. Shah and therefore no ground remains for consideration of the appeals of the Revenue against these two persons. The appeals against these two persons viz. Appeal Nos. C/606/06 and 611/06 are accordingly dismissed. 16. emsp In the result, Appeal Nos. C/558/05 of Shri Pradeep S. Mehta, C/ 1196/05 of Shri Shammi Chanana and Appeal Nos. C/607/06, C/610/06, 605/06, C/606/06, C/608/06 and C/611/06 filed by Revenue against M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., Shri Dinesh Meghani, Ashok Kumar Acharya, Pradeep S. Mehta, Shammi Chanana and Bhumish M. Shah respectively are rejected. Appeal No. C/559/05 of M/s. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., C/708/05 of Shri Bhumish Shah are allowed. Appeal Nos. C/612/06, C/609/06 filed by Revenue against M/s. Aroma International and Shri Piyush Meghani respectively are allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in Court on 23-10-2008)
........
|
