Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2009 2009 2009 (10) Central Excise - 2009 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 182 Records

• 2009 (10) TMI 962
  
  ..... he definition. Therefore, the present grievance raised by the appellant is bereft of bona fides. Yet another grievance raised by the appellant is that they were statutorily required to maintain greenery on 33 of the factory premises, but this aspect was not considered. The above aspect turned out to be irrelevant in a situation where the subject service did not pass the test of the main part of the definition of the ‘input service’. The third aspect stated in the present application pertains to expenses incurred by them towards garden maintenance. This aspect was also irrelevant, given the findings recorded in para 3 of the final-order. Certain issues were remanded to the original authority and, therefore, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to examine the penalty-related issue. Such issues are open to be considered by the said authority. 4. Having found no error, let alone apparent error, in the final order, I dismiss this application. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 945
  
  ..... decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sudhir Engineering Co. Vs CCE Surat 2004 (164) ELT 211 (Tri.-Del.) . 5. On perusal of the Notification No.10/97-CE, we find that the exemption was extended to scientific and technical instruments, apparatus, equipment (including computers) and accessories and spares parts of aforesaid goods. There is no dispute that the goods were cleared to research institutes. It appears from the literature placed by the ld. advocate that the UPSS is equipment to protect perils such as spikes, surges, voltage fluctuations, black outs and other aberrations. UPSS is, therefore, in our view, covered under clause (a) of Sl.No.1 of the Table appended to the said notification. Hence there is no reason to deny the benefit of the exemption notification. 6. In view of the above discussions, the appeal No.E/566/03 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 29.10.09)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 944
  
  ..... o know the contents of those provisions prior to 1-5-1998. In order to apply any penal provision it is necessary that party should get the opportunity to defend its right in that regard. This proviso was not applied to the matter in hand at the original stage and on the basis of such amended provision, the Revenue wants to saddle appellants with the penalty. The same cannot be allowed unless it is established by the department that the appellants had opportunity to know the amended notification. 8. Applying the said ruling to the facts of the case, the appellants are justified in contending that the authorities could not have imposed penalty equal to the amount to the duty payable by the appellants and the impugned order to that extent is liable to be set aside. 9. The appeals accordingly succeed. The impugned order imposing penalty in exercise of power under Rule 96ZO(3) of the said Rules is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in the said terms.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 925
  
  ..... impugned notifications the differential amount of duty that such units would become entitled to shall be credited and such units shall be permitted to take credit thereof to the said extent by treating every debit to the said account as being payment of Excise Duty in cash to the extent such differential amount of credit gets exhausted in relation to future liability required to be discharged in relation to such units. In other words, the credit shall be to their respective PLA accounts. This direction shall be applicable in each case on the facts as exist. (38) During course of hearing number of authorities have been cited by both the sides. The Court has not found it necessary to burden the judgment by reproducing extracts from various authorities. Suffice it to state that ratio of all the judgments cited have been considered by the Court. (39) The petition is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. RULE made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 922
  
  ..... in the market. It is not possible for the Courts to ignore these facts while considering the issue of hardship, more so when the economy is in recession. The Courts cannot close their eyes to the fact that any additional unjust demand or burden may result in effecting production and job losers. These aspects have to be borne in mind while considering the issue of hardship. 6. The petitioner have therefore made out a prima facie case as also the issue of hardship requires reconsideration. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the impugned order dated 7th August 2008 is liable to be set aside and the matter restored to the file of the Tribunal for rehearing the parties and passing appropriate order in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. 8. During the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the respondents not to take steps to recover the amount which is the subject matter of the appeal pending before the Tribunal.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 901
  
  ..... available at the time of clearance of the said cars. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellant that they have paid duty on the provisional price without any basis. So, the original authority rightly adopted normal sale price of the cars. We have also noted that after clearance of the cars from factory on the basis of provisional assessment, two cars were earmarked as waste and scraps meant for scrapping. Central Excise duty would be levied and paid on the value of the goods at the time of clearance from the factory gate. In the present case, the said two cars were cleared in usable conditions and, therefore, demand of duty on the value of the said cars at the time of clearance from the factory is justified. 5. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 28-10-2009.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 899
  
  ..... the Respondent Mr. P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Adv., Mr M.Y. Deshmukh, Adv., Mr. Sunil K Gupta, Adv., Mr. P.P. Goyal, Adv. JUDGEMENT Delay Condoned. Civil Appeals are dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 893
  
  ..... ettled in favour of the assessees by the decision of the Tribunal in Millipore India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2009 (13) STR 616 and CCE, Aurangabad Vs. Endurance Systems India Pvt. Ltd. 2009 (237) ELT 204. Both these decisions rely upon the decision of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Commissioner Vs. GTC Industries Ltd. 2008 (12) STR 468. Following the ratio of the decisions cited supra, I uphold the impugned order extending CENVAT credit and dismiss the appeal.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 891
  
  ..... on 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is allowed by waiving pre-deposit and staying recovery of the amount pending the appeal, as we note that the entire demand of service tax as a result of wrong availment of credit has been reversed under protest by the applicants. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 889
  
  ..... n case as on the very same issue. 4. Learned JCDR reiterates the findings given by the Adjudicating Authority. 5. On a careful perusal of the records, we find that the issue involved in this case is whether the appellant is eligible to avail 20 of the credit on the input stage credit for the entire year as a whole or should the same be restricted to monthly availment and utilization. On a careful perusal of the order of the Co-ordinate bench, in appellants' own case, the appeal was allowed on this very ground. As such, we find that appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. All the legal submissions which have been raised by the learned JCDR can be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal. Accordingly, application for waiver of pre-deposit of adjudged dues confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority is waived and recovery thereof stayed, till the disposal of the appeal. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 836
  
  ..... at part of the order stating therein that bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled on account of non-observance of the direct on contained therein is not sustainable in law as consequence of non-observance of the direction has been contemplated under Section 14 of the said Act itself and as such, that part of the order dated 18-5-2009 where it has been stated that the bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled is hereby quashed. 30. emsp Thus, respondent No. 3 never appears to have acted without jurisdiction in the matter of arrest of the petitioner nor the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad including the order dated 18-5-2009 is bad except that part of the order wherein it has been stated that bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled on account of non-observance of direction contained therein which part of the order stands quashed. 31. emsp In the result, this application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 822
  
  ..... tor compliance with the statutory provisions by the EOU. The Development Commissioner will evaluate the performance of the EOU as regards the achievement of export obligation and NFEP/EP by it. Liabilities of the EOU in this regard are secured by bonds executed by it with the department. The same authority, namely the DGFT, issues the DEPB book. If DEPB benefit is allowed in respect of the impugned exports to M/s. Eastern Exports Chennai, the appellants will not be allowed benefits under the E.O.U. scheme on account of the same exports by the DGFT. This safeguard is behind issue of the Circulars referred to. The Commissioner would not have demanded the impugned duty contrary to the guidelines contained in the Circular. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned demand from Saritha Software Industries Ltd., is premature and uncalled for. We vacate the same and allow this appeal. (Operative portion of the order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 821
  
  ..... per the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act (as amended). Therefore, prima facie, we find that it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. However, prima facie, we find that the demand in first Show Cause Notice dated 4-3-2003 for the period from April, 2000 to January, 2002 of Rs. 11,27,94,220.00 is time-barred. Hence, the demands in other show cause notices were within the normal period of limitation. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of revenue, as provided under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, the Applicant is directed to deposit Rs. 19.42 crores (Rupees nineteen crores and forty-two lakhs) within a period of 12 weeks from today. On deposit of the above-mentioned amount, the remaining amounts of the duty, interests and penalties are waived and recovery of the same is stayed during pendency of the Appeals. Compliance to be reported on 12-1-2010. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 820
  
  ..... der state that failure to make the pre-deposit within the stipulated period shall result in dismissal of appeal without further notice to them, it would not mean that without a formal order, appeal is considered to be as dismissed if pre-deposit as per the order is not made. The matter is listed for noting compliance and if the compliance of the order is not made, a formal order of dismissal for non-compliance with the stay order is issued. If the contention of the learned DR is accepted, there would be no need for listing the case for noting compliance and issue of a formal order of dismissal by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned DR. 5. Since the appellants have executed the bond in terms of the order of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court, the order of the Tribunal dated 21-4-2009 stands modified to the extent that subject to execution of bond the stay petition filed by the appellant is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 817
  
  ..... ed. In terms of the impugned order, appellants are required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,70,89,749/- besides in rest and equal amount of penalty. 12. Though, we find no case has been made out for grant of stay of the impugned order, in view of the right of appeal, it would be justifiable to give opportunity to the appellant in that regard as it is statutorily available and bearing the same in mind, it would be in fairness in the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount involved in the matter, to waive the requirement of deposit in relation to the interest and penalty amount at this stage. 13. In the result, therefore, the application is partly allowed. The appellants are required to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,70,89,749/- within a period of twelve (12) weeks. On deposit of such amount requirement of balance amount shall stands waived till the disposal of the appeal. Matter to come up for reporting compliance on 22-1-2010. 14. Application stands disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 816
  
  ..... t to evade payment of excise duty. In fact, the departmental officers should have pointed out at that stage itself that the declaration of July, 2006 was not complete and that they should give the information with respect to description of inputs rdquo . 2. Prima facie, therefore, the learned Commissioner has arrived at the finding that there was no absolute evidence nor any intent to evade payment of duty, and the defect if any, in the original declaration was curable, and the departmental authorities themselves could have been vigilant and accordingly could have required the appellants to furnish necessary information. In these circumstances, the appellants have made out a prima facie case for grant of stay of the impugned order as it does not disclose any prejudice will cause to the revenue, if stay is granted. Hence, the application is allowed, the impugned order is stayed. The total demand is waived till the disposal of the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 815
  
  ..... e, which could be damaging to the revenue. The above decisions cannot be made applicable in the present case, where the situation is undisputedly revenue neutral and the eligibility of the Appellants to the Cenvat credit on the inputs sent to the two units remains undisputed. In the present case, there are no revenue implications involved and the demand against the Appellants is unsustainable as held by the various Orders of the Apex Court referred to earlier. In the context of the present case, the Judgment of the Hon rsquo ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors- 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) is inapplicable as there is no dispute to the availability of the credit on the inputs and there are no revenue implications involved. 12. I thus hold that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Pronounced in court on 7-10-2009)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 814
  
  ..... not really affect the case of the appellants, in view of the fact that the Tribunal in the case of Helios Food Additives Pvt. Ltd., as pointed out by the ld. Advocate, had held that Chapter 21 is also not relevant. Without expressing any opinion as regards the relevancy of the material produced by the Department, we allow the Department rsquo s application to introduce the evidence and we make it clear that we are not holding that the letter dated 11-4-2008 cited by the Revenue in their miscellaneous application can be taken into account at this stage, as pointed out by the ld. Advocate. Revenue has to show that the products and the manufacturing process and the chemical composition continued to remain the same through out period and only if this is shown letter can be held to be relevant. In the interest of justice, we allow the miscellaneous application to introduce the technical literature filed with the miscellaneous application as additional grounds. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 813
  
  ..... nt order for perusal. It is the submission that since the excisable goods and property are in the custody of the Revenue, the stay order may be modified and the appeals be heard without insisting pre-deposit of the balance amounts in terms of the stay order dated 26-3-2009. 4. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that total dues of the appellants in the entire appeals is Rs. 4.83 Crores and penalty of Rs. 5.35 Crores including personal penalties. If it so, the order of attachment of property of Rs. 35.35 Crores is enough to secure the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the Misc. application for modification of the Stay Order Nos. 318 to 323/2009 dated 26-3-2009 is allowed. The stay order stands modified. An amount of Rs. 25 lakhs which has already been deposited is considered as compliance of our stay order dated 26-3-2009. Registry is directed to list the appeals for regular hearing in due course. (Pronounced and dictated in the court)

  ---

• 2009 (10) TMI 812
  
  ..... the learned Consultant that Rule 25 has not been invoked in the show cause notice and therefore, no penalty can be imposed does not merit acceptance. The decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in Amrit Foods does not apply to the facts of the present case. Similarly, the decisions in the case of M.H. Steel Corpn., Ashish Gupta cited supra are of no help to them as the facts of the present case are clearly different from the facts of those cases. It is a clear case of registered dealer admittedly failing in their obligation in accounting the goods received by them. As already observed, accounting does not merely mean accounting in RG-23D but accounting the disposal of the goods as permitted under the Rules. As there is a clear violation on the part of the registered dealer, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed on the appellant under Rule 25 is justified and calls for no interference. 7. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.

  ---

12345........ 10