|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 189 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 1029
... ...
... ... ..... l for the appellant. Delay condoned. The civil appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1024
... ...
... ... ..... the Respondent Mr. Mihir Joshi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vijay Nair, Adv., Ms. V.D. Khanna, Adv. for M/s. I.M. Nanavati Associates, Advs. ORDER Heard learned counsel on both sides. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 980
... ...
... ... ..... entral Excise, Ahmedabad vs Lucy Plast Ltd 2007 (220) ELT 320 (Tri-Del), (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad vs Pole Star Industries Ltd 2007 (216) ELT 257 (Tri-Ahmedabad), (c) Cosmic Dye Chemicals vs Commissioner of Central Excise 1995 (75) RLT 721 (SC) and (d) Reina Dying & Printing Works vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat I 2007 (209) ELT 190 (Tri-Mumbai). 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to allow this appeal by way of remand. Accordingly, after setting aside the orders of the lower authorities, I direct the original authority to pass fresh order of adjudicating in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. It is particularly directed that the appellant be allowed to cross examine Shri Umesh Modi as also to obtain certified extracts from the original records recovered from him. It goes without saying that the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 6. The appeal stands allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (11) TMI 970
... ...
... ... ..... r-in-Appeal No. P-I/245-246/06 dated 15.6.2006. She followed the precedent and held in favour of the assessee. In the present appeal, the department submits that they have not accepted the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal dated 15.6.2006 of the Commissioner (Appeals). After hearing learned SDR, I learnt that the appeal filed by the department against the above order dated 15.6.2006 was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal vide Order No A/492-495/08/SMB/C-II dated 5.6.08 in appeal Nos E/3079 and 3080/06 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I vs Premium Energy Transmission Ltd). Ld SDR has furnished a copy of the Tribunal’s order, which elaborately considered the issue and concluded that the Revenue’s appeals were devoid of merits. The Tribunal’s order dated 5.6.08 has since attained finality. In this scenario, the present appeal of the Revenue is only to be dismissed. 2. Accordingly, the impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated in Court.)
-
2009 (11) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... e of the co-noticees who had filed an appeal before her not liable to penalty under Rule 209A on the ground it had not dealt with excisable goods which it had reason to believe were liable for confiscation. The above matter had arisen before the Commissioner (Appeals) in a second round when the appeals filed by others including DTPL had been pending before the Tribunal. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had given detailed findings to substantiate her decision that charge of clandestine clearance against DTPL was not sustainable. This decision has been accepted by the department. In view of this position, the impugned order could not have validly held a different view on the transactions engaged by DTPL. In the circumstances, we hold that the impugned order confirming demand of duty and penalty on DTPL, and other is not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 947
Penalty u/r 15(1) of CCR - imposition on the ground of non-filing of ER-6 returns prescribed under Rule 9A of CCR, 2004 by the due date - Held that: - Rule 15 of CCR under which the penalty for this contravention of Rule 9A has been imposed, does not provide for imposition of penalty for offences other than taking the Cenvat credit in respect of inputs or capital goods wrongly or in contravention of provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. This rule does not provide penalty for any other offence and other than Rule 15 - In fact in Cenvat Credit Rule,2002, there is no provision analogous to Rule 27 of Cenvat Credit Rule which provide for imposition of penalty in the cases for contravention where no other penalty prescribed in the CER, 2002 or in the Act.
The contravention for which the penalty has been imposed, is only a procedural violation and subsequently, the required return had been filed. In view of these circumstances, the impugned order imposing penalty of ₹ 50,000/- on the appellant under Rule 15 of CCR, 2004 is not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 929
... ...
... ... ..... d explanation given by the Assessee, regarding the shortages and excesses are justifiable, we do not find any reason for interference in the impugned Order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. As regards the goods seized at the Delhi Depot we concur with the views of the Adjudicating Authority that the said goods were never removed without payment of duty from the factory premises as there is evidence of payment of duty on the invoice value which has been Indicated. 21. Since, we have already set aside the OIO No. 32/05 on the ground that the entire Order-in-Original is traversing beyond the Show Cause Notice, we find that the charges of undervaluation do not stick on the Appellants, and as such the cash recovered from the residence of Shri Narinder Goel, is correctly held by the Adjudicating Authority as it does not correlate to any particular transactions. There are no grounds for holding that the cash is liable for confiscation. The Revenues appeals are rejected.
-
2009 (11) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... ces in the quantity and the demand notices were issued for shortages. 2. The appellant has filed the written submissions that in the appellant s own case, on the identical issue this Tribunal has decided in their favour vide Order No.A/741 to 746/2007/C-II/EB dated 12.10.2007. The issue is squarely covered and prayed the appeal be allowed. 3. The learned SDR also confirmed the same. 4. I find that the issue in this case has already been decided by this Tribunal vide Order dated 12.10.2007 nothing remains to be decided. Following the same, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 890
... ...
... ... ..... with by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, he wants to go before the Tribunal either for clarification or for rectification. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty keeping all contentions on open.
-
2009 (11) TMI 887
Valuation - valuation done on the basis of cost construction method applying CAS-4 - absence of comparable prices - Held that:- There are no comparable prices available. The Department has merely taken the indicative prices given in the invitation to tender document set out by TWAD Board inviting quotations. The same does not indicate either actual or comparable prices of the pipes.
Thus, the valuation adopted by the Department is not based on any comparable value and the same cannot be approved.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 885
... ...
... ... ..... il appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay of 280 days, leaving the question of law open.
-
2009 (11) TMI 883
Pre-deposit - Requirement of pre-deposit not only on the duty amount but also on interest and penalty -
-
2009 (11) TMI 882
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 880
... ...
... ... ..... 2 No. 49/03-04 which leads to the conclusion that the said goods were short shipped. 8. Govt. further observes that to claim the rebate, the claimant has to establish that the same goods which have been manufactured/cleared vide ARE-2 and had suffered duty are exported against shipping bill. In the absence of the endorsement of the Customs Officer on the body of the ARE-2, it is not possible to co-relate the goods and to establish that same goods have been exported vide the shipping bill. Moreover, the goods in the instant case, were not opened for examination by the Customs Officers. 9. In view of the above discussions & findings. Govt. observes that the applicant has failed to establish that all the goods cleared vide ARE-2 were actually exported. Hence, the applicant is not entitled for rebate on the goods short shipped. 10. Govt. uphold the impugned order-in-appeal and order-in-original. 11. Revision application is rejected being devoid of merits.
-
2009 (11) TMI 816
... ...
... ... ..... had issued the invoices at lower rate to the distributors and the distributors issued the invoices at the rate contract, which clearly shows the mala fide intention of the respondent and with this mala fide intention the respondent cannot escape from the levy of penalty under Section 11AC. Further, interest is payable whatsoever reason may be. 7. With these observations, I do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed holding that the respondent is liable to pay the interest under Section 11AB and the penalty equal to the amount of duty involved. Further, I am of the opinion that the respondent has already paid the duty demand before issuance of the show-cause notice and in that effect penalty under Section 11AC shall be restricted to 25 of the duty, if the respondents pay the penalty and interest within 30 days of the communication of this order. Failing which, the respondents are liable to pay 100 penalty. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... uires the Tribunal not to be influenced by the Tribunal order dated 28-5-2004 while deciding the other issues and the order of the High Court cannot mean that the Tribunal has to reconsider the demand, which was set aside earlier. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The Hon rsquo ble High Court has observed and has taken note of the fact that the appeal filed by the appellants is against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the matter was remanded for his reconsideration. Therefore, what they have directed that while considering that appeal, the Tribunal may pass appropriate order untrammeled by the findings recorded earlier, setting aside the demand and remanding some issue to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Dictionary meaning of the untrammeled is ldquo without being hindered rdquo . Therefore, we find no merit in the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue and accordingly, reject the same. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 814
... ...
... ... ..... e any person takes Cenvat credit on inputs or capital goods wrongly or in contravention of any provisions of these Rules. In this case at a time of taking the credit on the basis of registered dealer rsquo s invoices, there was no irregularity as the credit was taken only of the duty mentioned in invoices. The invoices did not mention that the goods had been purchased by the registered dealer from a 100 EOU or that the registered dealer on the basis of the invoices of 100 EOU, had taken full credit. As soon as the credit available to the registered dealer on the basis of 100 EOU was reduced, the appellant also subsequently reversed the excess credit along with interest. In view of these circumstances, I am of the view that the imposition of penalty under Rule 13(1) was not called for on the appellant. The penalty on the appellant, therefore, is set aside. The impugned order stands modified as above and the appeal stands disposed of as above. (Order dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... icate required under section 6 of the Act or (d) contravenes any of the provisions of these rules or the notifications issued under these rules with intent to evade payment of duty. rdquo 3. The present show-cause notice did not allege any of the above has grounds against the noticee, nor has the learned SDR argued to the contra. In this scenario, any penalty under Rule 25 could not have been imposed on the appellant. Section 11AB is on the same footing as Section 11AC in so far as the grounds are concerned. The show-cause notice did not state any ground for invoking Section 11AB either, though it sought to recover interest from the noticee under this provision. Therefore, the action of the original authority, upheld by the appellate authority, to demand interest on duty under Section 11AB is not sustainable in law. 4. In the result, the demand of duty is sustained but without interest. The penalty is set aside. The appeal is partly allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... s or, in the language used by this Tribunal in Mohanlal Gupta rsquo s case staring at the Tribunal. 4. In the result, the final order turns out to be patently erroneous and the same, in the circumstances of this case, requires to be recalled. The impugned order was passed in October, 2002, when the crucial amendment to Rule 57CC was not there. The lower appellate authority, at that time, was right in taking the decision against recovery of the amount of 8 of the price of the exempted goods from the assessee for want of machinery provision. The same was the situation when the appeals were filed by the department. However, eventually, the law came to be amended to the advantage of the appellant. In this scenario, I set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to take fresh decision on the issue in accordance with law after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. The appeals stand allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... rein supplied cleaning equipments such as automatic scrubbers etc. to the respective buying units of Indian Navy and also produced certificate that the cleaning equipments would put to exclusive use as stores on board vessel of Indian Navy. The benefit has been denied to the applicants on the ground that the goods were not supplied to the Navy. Prima facie case has been made out having regard to the language of the Notification. We, therefore, waive the pre-deposit and stay recovery of the amounts in question pending the appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
........
|
