Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 82 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:- Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
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 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 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 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 960
... ... ... ... ..... the learned Counsel submits that the Tribunal should have considered that because of the processing of the goods by the respondent the value of the goods is increased and therefore, duty has to be revised. Admittedly this point was not urged before the Tribunal. It is submitted because this point was not considered by the Commissioner, the matter may be remanded back to the Commissioner, but in our opinion, the permission cannot be granted to the appellant to raise the said point for the first time before this Court. 2. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, there is no question of law arises. The appeal is rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 959
... ... ... ... ..... the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to adopt appropriate remedy before the Tribunal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 947
... ... ... ... ..... se notice as to why such credit should not be denied. After considering the reply and the statements of the concerned persons the adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. 3. The revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter before the Tribunal unsuccessfully. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the authorities have been relying on order of the Tribunal in case of M/s. National Engineering Industries Limited v. CCE, Jaipur-I against which order an appeal has been preferred before Rajasthan High Court and hence, the present appeal deserves admission. 5. On pendency of such an appeal before another High Court normally the Court would have made an order of admission. However, in the present case, it is an accepted position that the transaction is revenue neutral in nature and hence, the issue is academic. 6. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as the issue is academic in nature.
-
2008 (7) TMI 945
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods - Words and Phrases - the view taken by the tribunal is in consonance with the law.
-
2008 (7) TMI 440
Interest - Held that: - there is no fraud, suppression or wilful misstatement, interest under Section 11AB could not have been levied - appeal rejected.
-
2008 (7) TMI 439
Appellate Tribunal's orders - Scope of ... ... ... ... ..... ch. 4. Thus, it is apparent that admittedly the appellant itself was holding a view that the Diesel Oil Engine, used as a component in the pump, was a dutiable item. It was only because of the insistence of respondent-revenue on Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules that the entire controversy arose. Once the Tribunal accepted the stand of the petitioner and negatived the stand of the revenue the Tribunal was, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, justified in coming to the conclusion that status quo ante was required to be restored by accepting the plea of the appellant-assessee that the assessee was liable to pay duty at the appropriate rate on the diesel engines captively consumed in manufacturing of Centrifugal pumps. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, arises out of impugned order dated 7-12-2006 made by the Tribunal. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. NOTICE discharged.
-
2008 (7) TMI 438
Appeal to High Court - Question of law ... ... ... ... ..... cribed under 226 for non-entry. Since, I am not in a position to establish any removal as the shortages are explained, no duty could be confirmed on the shortages as found in the OIO. Since, no duty on clandestine removal is being determined Section 11AC cannot be invoked. Therefore, no mandatory penalty under Section 11AC is called for. I do not find any reasons to impose a penalty under 209-A on the Project Manager. 5. The aforesaid findings have been confirmed by the Tribunal. 6. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the evidence has been appreciated both by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, and thereafter, findings of fact have been recorded. 7. In the circumstances, in absence of any infirmity in the order made by Commissioner (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the impugned order of tribunal does not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 436
Production capacity based duty - Short payment ... ... ... ... ..... al and the Tribunal after considering the facts came to the conclusion that none of the parameters had undergone change nor the appellants had requested for any change in the fixation of the ACP. Hence they have no justification whatsoever not to pay duty determined according to the ACP fixation by the jurisdictional Commissioner. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed against the confirmation of the duty so filed by the respondent. However, the Tribunal only reduced the penalty and directed to pay Rs. 2 lacs. 5. Hence we do not find that there is any substantial question of law is involved in this matter. In our opinion the Tribunal has applied their discretion in coming to such conclusion and accordingly this appeal is dismissed. 6. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings. 7. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2008 (7) TMI 435
Whether the Hon. CESTAT, Ah'bad is correct in confirming the demand of ₹ 4,18,620/- holding that the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 or 16/97-C.E., dated 1-3-97 or 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 as amended is not available since the goods bare brand name belonging to others?
Held that:- It is apparent that the Tribunal has recorded findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record. The Tribunal has found as a matter of fact that the manufacturing activity of branded goods was willfully suppressed from the department with an intention to evade duty of excise leviable on such goods. It has further been found by the Tribunal that some of the goods have been cleared without invoice or under a bogus/duplicate invoice. It is in this context that the findings of evasion of duty by the adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have been confirmed by the Tribunal.
Hence, in absence of any error of law having been committed by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not merit interference. None of the questions, as proposed or otherwise, can be termed to be a question of law, much less a substantial question of law so as to entertain the appeal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 434
Demand - Limitation - Extended period - Held that:- Whether in light of facts which have come on record any willful misstatement or suppression of facts can be ascribed to the respondent assessee is the question. The fact that in similar fact situation, the stand of respondent assessee was supported by three decisions of Tribunal till 9-12-2005 when the Larger Bench of the Tribunal decided the issue, itself would indicate that the position of law was not free from doubt and if the assessee adopted one modality for claiming exemption on the basis of decisions favouring the assessee, the charge as to willful misstatement or suppression of facts cannot be sustained. The finding of Tribunal referred to hereinbefore indicates that there was no information available on record to show that respondent assessee had made any attempt to keep away any vital information from the department.
In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the impugned order of Tribunal is based on appreciation of facts and evidence on record. In light of the position of law declared subsequently no infirmity can be found in the said order. No question of law arises.
|