|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 326 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 1085
... ...
... ... ..... carried out does not amount to manufacture? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CESTAT is justified in allowing the CENVAT Credit deposits (sic) the fact that the process carried out does not amount to manufacture and under the CENVAT Credit Rules, the credit is available only if the process carried out is the manufacturing process?
-
2008 (7) TMI 1084
... ...
... ... ..... (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has set aside the order-in-original and dropped the proceedings placing reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Atic Industries Pvt. Ltd., 1984 (17) E.L.T. 323. It has been held that respondent No. 1 was not related to respondent No. 2 within the meaning of Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. It has been found that respondent No. 1 did not have any interest in the Standard Batteries Limited and, therefore, it will not come within the meaning of the term “related person”, as indicated under Section 4(4)(c) of the Act. Counsel appearing for the revenue has failed to satisfactorily show that there is any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The finding recorded by the Tribunal is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1071
... ...
... ... ..... cardboard boxes cannot be included in the assessable value of the goods as the packing was necessary for transporting and marketing the electrodes. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the revenue does not dispute this fact that the packing was necessary for transporting and marketing the electrodes and fairly submits that point is concluded against the revenue by the aforesaid two decisions of this Court, especially Apar (P) Ltd. (supra). In view of this, we do not find any merit in these appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1069
... ...
... ... ..... of the order itself. If the said period is calculated from the date of receipt of the order, then it becomes clear that designated authority passed the order on 27.1.99, which is at Annexure 'A'. The petitioner received the order on 04.02.99 and made payment as determined by the designated authority on 03.03.99. Therefore the submission of the petitioner is that the payment was made as per the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of KVSS. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the payment was made by the petitioner in time i.e. within 30 days under Sub-section (2) of Section 90 of KVSS. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, the petition is required to be allowed on the short ground as discussed hereinabove. The order dated 22nd July 1999 passed by the designated authority vide annexure 'B' and order dated 03.11.99 at annexure 'E' are hereby quashed and set aside. 10. Rule is made absolute, with no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1060
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, 2006 (3) S.T.R. 321 (Tri.-LB)”. The decision of the larger bench has not been challenged and has been accepted by the department. In our opinion, therefore, as admittedly the order impugned in the appeal is entirely based on the decision of the larger bench which has been accepted by the department, it will not be in the interest of justice to entertain the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1059
... ...
... ... ..... reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 676 (T); Emtex Synthetics Ltd. reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 170 (T). The law on the point is well-settled that the charges of clandestine removal are required to be proved beyond doubt by production of sufficient and affirmative evidence and not on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. It is not understood as to why the Revenue has not conducted further verification from the buyers of the goods or the purchasers, when the details of the same were, according to them, available in said register. Having failed to conduct further investigation, Revenue cannot now confirm the demand on the basis of sole entry. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.” 5. The Tribunal having recorded findings after appreciation of evidence on record, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, can be termed to be a substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1047
... ...
... ... ..... produced, the refund could not have been ordered. 3. We find from the record that at no point of time the authenticity or correctness of the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was disputed and therefore the tribunal rightly held that the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant was not disputed at any point of time, the authority was justified on relying on the certificate. We do not see any substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1044
... ...
... ... ..... Reddy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1043
... ...
... ... ..... t. Ltd. was based on the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of appeal of the appellant. It is obvious, therefore, that the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of “M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd.” and the order passed in the case of the appellant are contradictory orders. In our opinion, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal impugned in this appeal has to be set aside. In our opinion, the Tribunal will have to re-consider the appeal in the light of those orders in the appeals filed by M/s.Paramount Silk Mills (P) Ltd. & M/s.Paramount Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., and the stand of the department of not challenging that order any further and accepting it. 3. In the result, therefore, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the appeal is set aside. Appeal no.E/3185/2000 is remitted back for reconsideration and decision in accordance with law and in the lights of the observations made above.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1035
... ...
... ... ..... al of the order shows that this was not the submission made before the Tribunal. It appears from the order that before the Tribunal the Appellant has not raised an issue that the matter is not covered by the judgments which were referred before the Tribunal. 3. In our opinion, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Tribunal in disposing of the appeal. Petition is, therefore, rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1021
... ...
... ... ..... ugned order has observed that the credit stands availed in respect of duty paid on steel bars, tubes, angles etc. which are used in the construction of the tower and NO CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY IS PAID ON THE TOWER ITSELF. As against the above observations and findings of the Adjudicating Authority, ld. Advocate has drawn our attention to the invoice issued by the supplier of the tower indicating payment of duty in respect of one tower by classifying the same under heading 7308.20.11. This basic dispute can only be resolved at the lower level, for which purposes, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for re-adjudication after clarifying as to whether the credit of duty is being claimed in respect of duty paid on tubes, angles, bars rods channels etc. used in the manufacture of tower or the claim is in respect of duty paid on the tower itself. The stay petition as well as appeal get disposed off in the above manner. Dictated and Pronounced in Court.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1016
Education Cess on paper cess - Held that: - paper cess is nothing but a duty of excise and levied as well as collected only in the name of cess for the purpose of development of industries under Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 on paper and paper boards - Once it is established that paper cess being paid by the paper industries is an excise duty in the eyes of law, it must be included with the other excise duty (B.E.D., S.E.D., Cess etc.) while calculating the correct amount of education cess @ 2% as prescribed, under Central Excise Law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 1015
Demand - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... er. 7. emsp On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the items fabricated by the appellant are permanently fixed to the roof. In our opinion and also in the light of the Supreme Court rsquo s observations in the case of Craft Interiors, we are of the considered opinion that all these items which are permanently fixed to the walls and ground of the room cannot be removed from one place to another without causing much damage to them and without cannibalizations. So when the test of cannibalization is employed the item cannot be considered as furniture in the light of the Supreme Court rsquo s decision. So even on merits, the department rsquo s case is weak. In any case, the entire demand is hit by time bar, as there is no justification for invocation of the longer period. In these circumstances, we set aside the Impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2008 (7) TMI 999
Whether the respondent by not maintaining separate accounts in respect of their byproduct viz. spent sulphuric acid cleared under Notification No.4/2006-CE for specific end use are required to maintain separate accounts and because of the failure whether they should pay 10% of the value as required under Rule 6(3)?
-
2008 (7) TMI 998
... ...
... ... ..... EOU. 2. No one has appeared for the respondent. Learned SDR on behalf of the Revenue states that the decision of the Tribunal in case of Amitex Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Surat I 2006 (72) RLT 11 has been appealed against by the department. The fact that Revenue has appealed against the decision does not mean that the decision should not be followed by this Tribunal. 3. In view of the fact that the matter is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal cited by Commissioner (Appeals), I find no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly, reject the same. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 989
Petroleum products - Supply to EOU - the decision in the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE [2007 (10) TMI 513 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] contested - Held that: - the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 985
... ...
... ... ..... quo; within the meaning of Section 31(c) of the Act would lie dormant, but cannot be said to have been concluded. And if the case lies dormant, the petitioner will be entitled to approach the Settlement Commission during this stage. 18. I am accordingly of the view that since the application for settlement was made in connection with the case involving assessment and collection of duty, the Settlement Commission was wrong in rejecting the petitioner’s application on the grounds which I have referred to above. 19. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I direct the Settlement Commission to reconsider the petitioner’s application in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. 20. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 21. Let an urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be given to the parties forthwith, if applied for, upon compliance with all formalities.
-
2008 (7) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... Indore reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 45 (S.C.) and the fact that the decisions in relation to the same company for previous years have been accepted by the department. 3. The appeal cannot be entertained. Hence, rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 972
Finalization of assessment - adjustment of excess amounts with the short payment - abatement of Turnover Discount - includibility
-
2008 (7) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... see, has not challenged the finding recorded by the Commissioner that polyvinyl alcohol denkapoval was a consumable. The Tribunal is further right in observing that if polyvinyl alcohol denkapoval was consumable, then the assessee’s case would be covered by Board’s Circular No. 389/22/89 dated 5-5-1989. With these observations, the appeals stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
........
|
