|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 326 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 664 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... cases, it has been held by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court that when goods have been sold to independent buyers at or about the same price, it has to be held that the relationship has not influenced the price and no special consideration has been shown to the related person. In the case of Balajee Electro Steel Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Ranchi reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 563 ( Tit- Kolkata) this Bench has also held that Rule 4 provides the basis for valuation on a comparable basis adopting value of independent transaction for unrelated buyers at arms length. Keeping in view the ratio of these decisions cited above, we are of the prima facie view that in the case of the appellants, it is legally permissible to assess the impugned goods on the basis of price of comparable goods at which the same have been sold to independent buyers. Accordingly, we waive the requirement of pre-deposit during pendency of the appeal. (Operative part of the order already pronounced in the Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 663 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand and penalty - Cenvat/Modvat - Availment of ... ... ... ... ..... of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and as per the formula, the appellants were entitled to a credit of only 9.6 equivalent to Rs. 1,17,168/- and Rs. 708/- towards Education Cess whereas the appellants had taken credit on the full duty paid. 2. emsp No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent. Learned Jt. CDR supported the OIO. 3. emsp I agree with the observations of Commissioner (Appeals) that sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of erstwhile Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 does not impose liability on the appellant to ensure the correctness of any exemption availed by consignors or correctness of the duty paid. What the consignee is required to do is to ensure that the supplier has paid the duty indicated in the invoice. The very fact that as soon as irregularity was noticed, the appellants reversed the credit, proves their bona fide and it is not the case of the department that supplies does not exist. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Department is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 661 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of order - Refund to buyer ... ... ... ... ..... for their official use or to the project financed by the United Nations or International Organization and approved by the Govt. of India. Revenue rsquo s objection that respondent is only a buyer of the goods and not the manufacturer, whereas the Notification grants exemption to the manufacturer, prima facie does not carry much weight, inasmuch as in terms of the provisions of Section 11B, buyers step into shoes of the manufacturer for claim of refund. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to stay the operation of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue rsquo s Stay petition is accordingly, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 660 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment - Held that: - The consistent case of the appellants has been that they had collected the disputed duty amount from its buyer on an understanding that the same would be returned to them if the item was decided to be non-excisable. The appellants have established this claim with documentary evidence submitted before the lower authorities - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2008 (7) TMI 658 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Interest - Payment of duty - Cenvat credit utilisation ... ... ... ... ..... due in the instant case, only with a delay of 292 days, interest paid was in accordance with law and there was no question of allowing refund of the same. 3. emsp I have studied the case records and heard the submissions made by both sides. I find that there is a bar for using Cenvat credit for payment of duty due for removal of goods in a month using the credit earned in the subsequent months. However, there is no prohibition in the assessee paying the short paid/unpaid/defaulted amount using the Cenvat credit. In the instant case, the assessee had paid the duty due in September for two clearances in August. The delay in payment of the duty not paid was only a few days for which there is no demand. There was no need to pay the amount from PLA as argued by the Consultant for the appellants. Therefore, the interest payment was also not required to be made. I find that the interest paid has to be refunded. The appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 656 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Waste and scrap - Excisability ... ... ... ... ..... ted by the ld. Counsel, ldquo lube oil waste rdquo , ldquo spent activated carbon rdquo and ldquo spent activated alumina rdquo were found to be lsquo industrial waste rsquo not exigible to duty. Similarly, in the case of SPIC Pharmaceuticals Division v. Commissioner, 2007 (213) E.L.T. 679 (Tri-Chennai), lubricating oil retrieved from machinery as waste was held to be not excisable. Following the cited case law, we set aside the demand of duty on ldquo transformer oil waste rdquo and ldquo trichloroethylene waste rdquo and allow this appeal. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 1-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 655 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Notification Nos. 29/2004-C.E. and 30/2004-C.E. ... ... ... ... ..... is added) 4. emsp The conclusions of the Commissioner (Appeals) seems to be assumptions and presumptions rather than examination of evidences and records available before him. He has not examined the decision of the adjudicating authority and has not explained why he is differing from him. It is also noticed that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that Shri Vijay B. Shah, Advocate reiterated the points mentioned in the memorandum of appeal whereas the appellant was the Department and the advocates had appeared on behalf of the respondent. The findings and the order show that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not applied his mind to all the facts has taken a considered view. We find that the Original Adjudicating Authority had reached the conclusion on logical basis and order of the Original Adjudicating Authority has to be restored. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. Stay petition also gets disposed off. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 654 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... consignments of cotton yarn were not in terms of the Rule 96E of the erstwhile CER as the goods were received for conversion in a facility not conforming to the definition of factory in the said Rule 96E. There is no dispute that all the impugned consignments were converted into fabrics and exported. If the assessee had followed the procedure under the Notification No. 47/94-C.E. (N.T.), the liability confirmed against the assessee would not have entailed. As per the ratio of the Affan Shoes Pvt. Ltd., case cited supra, the impugned demands are not sustainable as, undisputedly the impugned goods had not been diverted for home consumption. In the circumstances we find that the liabilities are not real but raised for failure to follow the procedure. The ratio of the decision in GTN Textiles Ltd. case (supra) also squarely supports the appeals. Accordingly, we vacate the impugned orders and allow these appeals. (Operative part of the Order pronounced in Open Court on 28-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 653 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
SSI exemption - Option for exemption ... ... ... ... ..... sent case, such clearances were made by the respondents on 5-4-1999 and 22-5-1999. It has been submitted by the learned Consultant that the cotton yarn cleared on 22-5-1999 was the production made prior to 22-4-1999. This case of the assessee has not been rebutted in the Revenue rsquo s appeal. There were only two duty-paid clearances of cotton yarn in the financial year 1999-2000 and the same were in the first two months of the financial year. All subsequent clearances of cotton yarn were made in terms of the SSI Notification. According to the ratio of the Larger Bench decisions, the respondents should be deemed to have opted for SSI exemption with effect from the start of the financial year itself. In other words, SSI benefit could not have been denied to them for the reasons stated by the original authority in its order and by the Revenue in its appeal. 3. emsp In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and the same is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 652 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation (Central Excise) - Transfer to sister unit - Case of Revenue is that the cost of production is higher than the price at which the goods were transferred to their sister unit
-
2008 (7) TMI 651 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... on 3-5-2006. The order of the Tribunal in 732-33/06 dated 9-8-06 which was passed in pursuance of order of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court is against them. Accordingly, he is not contesting the duty involved amounting to Rs. 1,91,690/- and the interest as applicable. 3.3 emsp However, he submits that there is no justification for imposition of penalty as the issue involved is purely a question of legal interpretation as to the fulfilment of condition of the notification and the dispute has been finally settled by the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court. 4. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. The submission of the learned Advocate that in the given facts and circumstances of the case no penalty is imposable is acceptable. Therefore, we confirm the duty demand as not contested. However, we set aside the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant. 5. emsp The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. (Operative part pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 650 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Interest on demand - Short payment of duty due to incorrect computation ... ... ... ... ..... tatutory provisions contained in Section 11AB of the Act. 4.3 emsp The impugned order relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Mysore Electrical Industries Ltd. Bangalore v. CCE, Bangalore-III vide Final Order No. 1575/2005 dated 6-9-2005, which, inter alia, held as follows - ldquo We are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances and in view of the fact that there is no provision for recovery of interest in cases of supplementary invoices on price variation clause the demand of interest is not justified and the same set aside by allowing the appeal. rdquo 5. emsp The above decision of the CESTAT is not relevant or applicable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by restoring the order of the original authority. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Note Text corrected as per Corrigenda Published in 2009 (244) E.L.T. 496 (21st December, 2009 - Vol. 244 Part 3)
-
2008 (7) TMI 649 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), KOLKATA-
Demand - Clandestine removal - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... ook rdquo . It was incumbent upon them to have produced their Manager (Operations) to appear before the Summoning Authority and Adjudicating Authority to explain the entries in the seized records. They have deliberately failed to discharge their legal obligation and the onus cast upon them. They took upon themselves the Adjudicator s job by pronouncing that the seized records are ldquo Notebook rdquo . This is the prerogative of the Adjudicator. He has to weigh the evidence, analyze the testimony and thereafter take an informed decision as to whether the seized records qualify to be labelled only as ldquo Notebook rdquo and the entries therein to be discarded as invalid. In the present proceedings the Appellant has straightaway proceeded to affix the label of ldquo Notebook rdquo on the seized records without observing the legal formalities and procedures. 9. emsp In view of the above the impugned order of the Lower Authority is correct in law and is upheld. Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 647 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - bonus amount - includibility - Held that: - there was no justification for treating the bonus amount as part of the price of the goods and demanding duty on that basis. The action is also patently unjust as it has been done without giving abatement for the penalties. Accordingly, the demand is set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 645 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Job work - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... find that it is not the case of the appellant that the job worker or the principal manufacturer did not fulfil the requirements of Notification No. 214/86-C.E. ibid. Again, it is not the appellant rsquo s case that the final products manufactured by M/s. Simpson and Co. Ltd. out of the job-worked goods supplied by the respondents were not removed on payment of duty. The only defect noted by the appellant is that the procedure pertaining to issue of statutory challans, laid down under Rule 57F(2)/(3), was not meticulously followed by the respondents. It is settled law that the benefit of the above Notification could not be denied to the job worker by mere reason of such minor procedural defects. We are in full arrangement with the decision of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Hence there is no question of demand of duty from, or of imposition of any penalty on, the respondents. The impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 642 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Demand - Limitation - Vegetable oil cess ... ... ... ... ..... that the period of stay of operation of the Act as ordered by the Hon rsquo ble High Court in the writ petitions had to be considered as stay envisaged in the Explanation to Section 11A. 4. emsp I have considered the rival submissions. Explanation to Section 11A as it stood at the relevant time reads as follows - ldquo Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of six months or five years as the case may be. rdquo The Revenue has no case that there was a stay of issuance of Show Cause Notice by the Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras pursuant to the writ petitions cited by the parties. The stay ordered by the High Court was of operation of the impugned levy. There is no dispute that the Show Cause Notice is otherwise barred by limitation. In the circumstances, the impugned order is sustained and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 640 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication ... ... ... ... ..... ured goods, specifically. The adjudicating authority instead of dealing the said plea in a proper way, has held in the order-in-original, that he was reluctant to deal with the issue and directed the respondent to take up the matter with the appropriate authority. We fail to understand why the adjudicating authority cannot deal with this matter, when the question of valuation of product is in dispute, which can apply only if it is manufactured and is always a consequent to the question of manufacture of a product. The Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion that the respondent is not engaged in the manufacture of the product and subsequent question as regards undervaluation does not arise. We find considerable force in the argument that the issue is covered by ITC Ltd. (supra). 5. emsp Accordingly, we find that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 639 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Sugar syrup - Dutiability ... ... ... ... ..... at the item was having shelf life. The facts are different in the present case. As seen from the manufacturing details given by the General Manager and Chief Chemist of the appellant rsquo s factory, there was no addition of citric acid to the mixture of milk of lime and sulphur dioxide gas which was passed on the solution. The same was heated to 100/104 deg C and sent to clarifier. There is no indication of the percentage of concentration of sugar in the syrup in both the reports. Therefore, the matter has to be remanded for de novo to consider on all aspects of the matter including time-bar. In view of this uncertainty in the matter, we are required to remand the case to the Original Authority for de novo consideration to ascertain the percentage of sugar syrup in the solution and decide the case de novo after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Thus, these appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority. (Pronounced in open Court on 8-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 637 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty - Imposition ... ... ... ... ..... e order by the original adjudicating authority. In terms of the proviso to Section 11AC, if penalty amount is deposited within a period of 30 days from the passing of the order, the penalty automatically gets reduced to that amount. The appellant having deposited the penalty amount to the extent of 25 within a period of one month, the penalty got reduced to the said amount in terms of proviso to Section 11AC, in which case the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit the balance amount of penalty for the purposes of Section 35F, was not warranted. As a consequence, the disposal of the appeal for non-compliance by the Commissioner (Appeals) is also not in accordance with law. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit. Appeal as well as stay application stands disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 3-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 634 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Classification of goods - “Sunsol 200” and “Sumex 90” distilled from Naphtha - The assessee classified them under Chapter heading No. 2710.90 as ‘other petroleum oils’ and the Dept. seeks classification under heading 2710.13 as ‘other special boiling motor spirit.’
............
|
