|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 326 Records
-
2008 (7) TMI 631 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - Reduction in penalty ... ... ... ... ..... efit of reduced penalty under the first proviso shall be available if the amount of penalty so determined has also been paid within the period of thirty days referred to in that proviso rdquo 5. emsp From the above statutory provision, the appellant firm was not eligible for the relief allowed. Reduction in penalty had not been canvassed on any other ground in the appeal disposed. In the circumstances, para-1 of the final order will be substituted by the following paragraph. ldquo The appellants have sought reduction of the penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11AC. It is seen that the appellants had discharged the duty liability as per the impugned order within 30 days of the order. The interest due thereon and the penalty imposed had not been paid within 30 days as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 11AC. The penalty imposed on the firm under Section 11AC in the impugned order is sustained rdquo The ROM is allowed. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 628 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tion 11A of the Act for the period from 1982-83 to 1987-88 is not decided. 14. emsp The appeals are accordingly partly allowed, the judgement and orders dated May 3, 1985 May 17, 1985 and June 1, 1985 as also the show cause notice dated August 4, 1987 issued by the Collector of Central Excise and his order passed thereon together with the judgement passed by the Tribunal in that regard to the extent they relate to inclusion of installation and commissioning charges are set aside without being any order as to costs rdquo . 7. emsp As it has been held that installation, erection and commissioning charges are not includible, on the same analogy and grounds, the charges for supervising such erection and commissioning also cannot be included in the assessable value. The orders of the original authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, cannot be sustained. The orders are set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in the open Court on 11-7-2008)
-
2008 (7) TMI 627 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
SSI Exemption - Brand name ... ... ... ... ..... a combination of the alphabets S, V and S, each enclosed in a rectangular box, was registered as a trade mark for the respondents apparently with effect from July 1987. 3. emsp After considering the submissions, we find that, during the period of dispute, the respondents had been using the combination of the alphabets S, V and S - each enclosed in a rectangular box - as their brandname/trade mark and this was got registered by the Trade Marks Registry. The superscription on the product label used by the respondents during the period of dispute was lsquo S.V.S. and SONS rsquo and not the above brandname/trade mark. The superscribed words simply represented the name of the respondents viz. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and Sons, and nothing else. The findings of the lower authorities that these markings on the product label did not constitute any brandname is perfectly justifiable. 4. emsp In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal gets dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 625 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Tapes - Adhesive tapes - Classification of ... ... ... ... ..... t cover rubberized textile fabrics. We also find that the decision relied upon by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the case of Johnson and Johnson Ltd. (supra), to come to a conclusion that the products manufactured by the appellants would merit classification under Chapter Heading No. 5907, is totally misplaced as in the said case, there is a clear finding that the products manufactured by M/s. Johnson and Johnson Ltd., are not rubberized fabrics and hence, may not get covered under Chapter Heading No. 59.05. 10. emsp Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the impugned order classifying the products manufactured by the appellants under Chapter sub-heading No. 5907.90 is incorrect and is liable to be set aside and we do so, and hold that the products as manufactured by appellant would merit classification under chapter sub-heading No. 5906. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2008 (7) TMI 440 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
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 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
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 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
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 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
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 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
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 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
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.
-
2008 (7) TMI 432 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Penalty - clandestine removal - Held that: - there is no dispute as to the fact that the goods were yet lying in factory premises - there is no evidence on record to prove clandestine removal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2008 (7) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Cenvat/Modvat - Capital goods ... ... ... ... ..... epted the decision of the Tribunal made in favour of the assessee in final Order No. 1494 of 2005 2006 (196) E.L.T. 35 (Tribunal) and Final Order No. 75 of 2005 2005 (183) E.L.T. 156 (Tribunal) and no further appeal has been filed. Apart from the assessee s own case, in several other assessee s cases also, the Tribunal has taken the very same view consistently, the particulars of the cases have been stated in the order of the Tribunal. When the consistent stand of the Department has been accepted by the Department in all cases, we find no reason as to why the very same consistent view should not be accepted in the case of the respondent, which is also in consonance with the statutory provisions. The learned counsel for the appellant is not able to place any contrary decision and is not able to point out as to how the decision of the Tribunal is contrary to the statutory provision. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
-
2008 (7) TMI 430 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Clandestine removal ... ... ... ... ..... removed due to X-mus holiday in M/s. German Remady which is a reasonable explanation, and can be believed. The finding on the same are an assumptions and cannot be supported. The aforesaid findings have been confirmed by the Tribunal. 4. Thus it is apparent that on same set of facts and circumstances of the case one view has been adopted by the Adjudicating Authority, but on appreciating the same set of facts and evidence the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have taken a different view of the matter. 5. Thus on appreciation of evidence if the Appellate Authorities have concurrently recorded the findings of facts no case is made out for interference in the impugned order of the Tribunal, specially when the goods in question were found lying in the factory premises. 6. In the circumstances, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of impugned order of the Tribunal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 428 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Can the Tribunal allow the modvat credit on grinding media balls of SH. 6907 & 7325.20 under rule 57A during the period from 24-4-1992 to 16-6-1994. When it is excluded from Rule 57A and is not an input for manufacture of final product i.e. Cement?
Held that:- Since the whole edifice of reference petition is sought to rest on provisions of Rule 57A, as are shown to have come into existence since 1-3-1997, and not on the provisions of Rule 57A as are shown to have existed at the relevant time, and since according to the provisions of Rule 57A as they are shown to have existed at the relevant time, on the face of language thereof, since the grinding media balls are eligible for availing Modvat credit, it cannot be said, that the substantial question of law, as raised, arises in the present case, nor that any interference is required to be made in the orders of the learned authorities below. W.P. dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 426 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Whether the Tribunal has committed substantial error of law in setting aside the personal penalty imposed under Rule 209-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 though the Respondent had knowingly concerned himself in fraudulent acts in contravention of provisions of the rules and dealt with goods which are held liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Rules?
Held that:- The findings of the Tribunal in relation to deletion of penalty in hands of the respondent-assessee have to be appreciated notwithstanding with the fact that the reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty under Rule 173Q of the Rules in hands of the Company are under challenge. The explanation tendered by respondent-assessee has not been met with by the adjudicating authority. As against that, the Tribunal has recorded that the requirement of Rule 209A of the Rules to show and bring on record that the officer had knowledge, is absent, and there is a categorical finding that the officers were not aware about the provisions to be followed, had no knowledge of Central Excise law, and upon being pointed out, had reversed the entry/debited the amounts. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 425 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Seizure of goods - applicant has prayed to quash the First Information Report being Junagadh Police Station, I-C.R. No. 48/85 as well as further proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1103/87 pending -
Held that:- Considering the fact that at the time when the seized goods were being returned to him, Shri Laxmandas had expressed suspicion that there was only one piece in the packet and had therefore, asked for open delivery, the Custodian ought to have strictly adhered the provisions of the Manual, more particularly as it was apparent that something was amiss.
From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the provisions of the Manual, which provide for ample safeguards, have not been followed in the present case. In the circumstances, it would not be possible to pinpoint the exact stage at which the goods have been exchanged so as to saddle the liability on the applicant. It is also an admitted position that such negligence in following the provisions of the Manual is not on the part of the applicant. On an overall view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court looking to the nature of the offence alleged against the applicant and more particularly, in view of the fact that the first information report has been lodged on 15th February, 1985 and more than 20 years have elapsed thereafter, no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting the proceedings to continue qua the applicant. Besides, in view of the above discussion, the chances of an ultimately conviction are also bleak.
In the result, the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The First Information Report being Junagadh Police Station, I "C.R. No. 48/85 as well as Criminal Case No. 1103/87 pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Junagadh, are hereby quashed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 424 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Maintainability of appeal - Whether the Commissioner, Central Excise who reviewed the order of the adjudicating authority did not exercise his powers within a period of one year as provided in Section 35E(3) of the Act?
Held that:- There is no manner of doubt that in the present case, the reviewing authority i.e. Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on 7-4-1998 i.e. after the expiry of one year of the date of the order of the adjudicating authority as specified in Section 35E of the Act.
Thus where a time is fixed for the purpose of exercising some power by the statute, such power must be exercised within the period so specified. Since power has not been exercised within the stipulated period, the direction to file an appeal was illegal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the department on the basis of such direction itself was not maintainable. Consequently, we uphold the order passed by the learned Tribunal.
-
2008 (7) TMI 423 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no allegation of deliberate act or omission on the part of the respondent for wrongly taking credit and holding it to be case of bona fide mistake, subsequently rectified despite evidence on record as regards wilful and wrongful availment of modvat credit taken with guilty mind to misutilize the facility of availment of modvat credit?
Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that there was no mala fide intention of wrongful availment of credit despite evidence that such invalid/wrongful availed modvat credit was utilized for the purpose of payment of central excise duty on excisable goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent ?
Held that:- If, in the light of the aforesaid findings of fact, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that this is basically a case of bona fide mistake which has been subsequently rectified, the High Court does not find any error of law which would warrant interference. Primarily, the matter has been decided on the basis of the facts and evidence on record.In the circumstances, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order of Tribunal. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 421 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Release of goods ... ... ... ... ..... r made by the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is, therefore, the only order that could have been made in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The frame of the proposed question suggests as if the subsequent act of cancellation of certificate granted under KVSS was brought to the notice of the Tribunal. However, the impugned order of the Tribunal does not reflect the said fact. If on this count, as contended by the learned counsel, the certificate was brought to the notice of the Tribunal the appellant-revenue may take appropriate steps, if so deemed fit, to move the Tribunal in this regard in accordance with law. However, that fact would not have any material bearing on the controversy at hand. 6. In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, no question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law, can be said to arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2008 (7) TMI 420 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refund claim - Interest on refund denied - Held that:- The documents evidencing payment of duty at both the occasions were already available on record because it is only on the basis of those two documents that the Assistant Commissioner had recorded finding that the duty has been paid on both the occasions. It is, thus, clear that the correlation could be established only on the basis of those two documents which were on record. A certificate was required to be submitted, by the appellate authority only to reinforce the fact that the duties have been paid at both the places. We thus find that the finding recorded in the order impugned that the applications for refund made by the petitioner were incomplete on the date of which they were received, is not sustainable and is contrary to the record and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
In the result therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders denying interest to the petitioner under Section 11BB of the Act impugned in the petition are set aside. Respondent no. 4 is directed to make order for payment of interest to the petitioner in accordance with law, in the light of this order and the provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, within a period of four weeks from today.
............
|
