|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 232 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 991
... ...
... ... ..... hat similar case was decided in the appellant's favour is correct in the facts and circumstances of this case? b) Whether the judgement of this Hon'ble Court in writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of financial hardship operated as res judicata in considering the appellant's pleas for stay and waiver of condition of predeposit on new grounds and fresh evidence?
-
2009 (5) TMI 989
Cenvat/Modvat - Fraudulent availment of credit - penalty imposed - Held that:- Delay condoned - appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 970
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 962
... ...
... ... ..... Delay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 958
... ...
... ... ..... by order dated 31.7.01 and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the impugned order dated 3.6.02 on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation as they have not filed it within the statutory period of six months from 17.11.1995. Hence this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. Although the appellants did not lodge formal letter of protest in terms of provisions of Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, the appeal against the confirmation of duty is to be treated as protest, in the light of the Tribunal’s order in Nice Foto Lab Vs. CC, Chennai 2002 (141) ELT 786 (Tri), CCE, Aurangabad Vs. BCL Forgings Ltd 2005 (192) ELT 922 (Tri.Mum) and Overseas Trading Corporation Vs. CCE, New Delhi 2006 (205) ELT 180 (Tri.Del) . Following the ratio of the above case law relied upon by the counsel for the appellants, we hold that the refund claim is not hit by time bar and accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 957
Whether the input credit taken, when the final product was dutiable need not to be reversed on final product becoming exempt from the payment of duty?
Held that: After referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Collector vs. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., [1999 (8) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] the larger Bench ruled thatwhen the input credit legally taken and utilized on the dutiable final product need not to be reversed on the final product becoming exempt subsequently w.e.f. 9.7.2004. Undisputedly, the facts of the case in hand clearly attracts the said ruling and therefore do not warrant detailed discussion and analysis of the materials - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... the court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or stipulated condition which is plain and unambiguous. The language employed in the stature is determinative factor of legislative intent. 8. In Union Budget of 1996 97, Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was introduced which has made the position clear that there is no scope for any discretion. The provision stating that the levy of penalty is mandatory penalty. 9. I am in agreement with the contention of the ld. SDR wherein it was held in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors & ors., (cited supra) by the Apex Court that under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 equivalent penalty is leviable as confirmed by the adjudicating authority and further confirmed by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Tirupati vs. Morarcho Pipes Ltd. 3.11.2008. Hence the appeal is allowed. Cross Objection filed by the respondent is also accordingly disposed of. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 939
... ...
... ... ..... cisable goods, the Bench found that outdoor catering services were used in the factory - canteen for supply of food to the workers and that the cost of food so supplied formed a part of the cost of production of excisable goods. 6. I have gone through the records and find that I have not come across any pleadings as to the number of workers in the factory and as to whether the cost of supply of food in the factory - canteen formed a part of the assessable value of the excisable goods during the material period. 7. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to examine the following- (a) Number of workers in the factor'. (b) Whether the cost of supply of food in the factory - canteen formed a part of the assessable value of the excisable goods during the material period. and pass the appropriate order within 60 days of the receipt of this order. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection by the appellants are also disposed of.
-
2009 (5) TMI 938
... ...
... ... ..... 377; 6,45,000/- has been denied and the amount is now lying with the department. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties since I find that a sum of ₹ 6,45,000/- is lying secured with the department, considering such fact the writ petition is disposed of by directing the Commissioner of Appeals to hear out the appeal arising out of the order in original dated 14th November, 2005 without insisting on the predeposit of ₹ 1 lakh as directed by the Tribunal by the order dated 25th April, 2007 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The order of the learned Tribunal passed on 25th April, 2007 is modified to the extent as indicated. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall go on renewing the bank guarantee till order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and communicated to the parties. No order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed xerox copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2009 (5) TMI 916
... ...
... ... ..... into effect RNTFC in their factory before they were built into tyres. In several decisions of the Apex Court and Tribunal, RNTCF has been held to be classifiable under Chapter Heading 59.06. None of these decisions has held that the impugned item was non-excisable. Even though the classification of RNTCF was not an issue in the show cause notices, which propose the denial of the benefit of exemption Notification 67/95, dated 16-3-1995, they would be relevant as the leviability of AED depends upon the classification. If the product is classified under 59.06, no AED will be leviable’. 4. In view of the above submission made on behalf appellant which statement is recorded in the order of the Tribunal, therefore there is no need for us to consider the substantial questions of law framed in this appeal as the Tribunal has rightly affirmed the order of assessment, which is affirmed by the appellate Tribunal 5. The appeal is devoid of merit. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 909
... ...
... ... ..... sue notice. Stay of penalty amount till further orders.
-
2009 (5) TMI 903
... ...
... ... ..... nished goods, duty cannot be demanded on the raw materials again. Both sides agree that Commissioner (Appeals) has followed the decisions of the Tribunal cited by her and the issue is covered by not only those decisions but also other decisions, in view of the fact that matter is already settled by the decisions of the Tribunal, appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 901
Deemed credit on export – refund - Held that: - issue is already decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT–I Versus SWAGAT SYNTHETICS [2008 (7) TMI 208 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT], where it was held that neither u/r 57F(13) of CER nor under N/N. 29/96-C.E.(N.T.) has any Notification been published in the Official Gazette by the Central Govt. prescribing any safeguards, conditions or limitations - when there is no dispute to the fact that that assessee is seeking refund of unutilized deemed credit, provisions of Section 11B, which have been relied upon by the revenue, cannot be applied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 899
Refund claim - price of the gold which has been allegedly sole unauthorizedly by the Department shall be paid with interest at the rate that may be fixed by this Court - order of refund stayed till further orders.
-
2009 (5) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... gal provisions and therefore, no justification for imposition of any penalty. 6. Learned DR reiterates the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. I am in total agreement with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Cenvat credit cannot be permitted on the strength of invoices which are neither in the name of recipient nor are acceptably endorsed in their favour. The appellants have not shown how the tyres which have been sent by CEAT to their depot is transferred to them, whether by sale or otherwise. Under these circumstances, the denial of credit and demand of duty along with interest are fully justified. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, as the matter involves question of interpretation of legal provisions penalty is not warranted. 8. Appeal is disposed of by upholding the demand of duty along with interest and by setting aside the penalty.
-
2009 (5) TMI 856
... ...
... ... ..... see only the value of the quantity of the goods received in their factory and it is on record and undisputed by the revenue that M/s. NALCO had taken cenvat credit of the duty only to that extent of the goods which were received by them. It would appear that the shortages which were noticed by M/s. NALCO are genuine and duty of excise paid by the assessee is definitely an excess duty which is not liable to be paid by him. It is also seen that the amount of refund claimed by the appellant asessee is not passed on to the customer. If that be so, we do find that the appellant asessee is eligible for the refund of the amount claimed by them on the quantity which were received short by their customers. 10. Accordingly in view of the foregoing reasons we allow the assessee rsquo s appeal and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. Both the appeals are disposed of as indicated hereinabove. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2009 (5) TMI 855
... ...
... ... ..... 1944. The only fact found to arrive at conclusion that Shri V. Ramachandran had knowingly dealt with excisable goods liable for confiscation is that in a statement dated 10-10-2000, he had stated that at times processed fabrics were received from ERTP without bill/invoice. Though the Commissioner records that the private records and other correspondences of the customers evidenced involvement of the appellant in clearance of processed fabrics without payment of duty by ERTP, I have not been able to find any such evidence noted in the impugned order. In the absence of such evidence, the Commissioner rsquo s finding that Shri V. Ramachandran had dealt with fabrics liable to confiscation with the knowledge of such liability of the goods is not sustainable. Therefore, the order of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed under Rule 209A on the appellant is not sustainable. In the circumstances the order of penalty is vacated and the appeal allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 853
... ...
... ... ..... redundant. rdquo 8. In the present case, it is seen that the appellants undertook the process of welding of pipes with flanges at their premises and availed credit on pipes. There is no dispute that pipes with flanges were exported. It is also not in dispute that they were eligible for claiming the rebate. It is seen that they have exported goods under bond instead of claiming rebate. The Board already clarified that exports under lsquo claim of rebate rsquo and lsquo export under bond rsquo should be at parity. Therefore, submission of learned D.R. that the process undertaken by the appellants do not amount to manufacture and, therefore, they are not eligible to credit, is not sustainable. 9. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rico Auto Industries (supra) and Board rsquo s circular, I do not find any reason to deny credit. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 852
Valuation - loan license arrangement - demand on the ground that the price at which Dr. Reddys labs are selling the medicines from their Depot will be the basis for determining the assessable value and duty payable by the respondents as a loan licensee - Held that: - It is absolutely clear that there is no sale involved in the transaction between the respondent and Dr. Reddys Labs Ltd., hence, the valuation of the goods cleared by the respondents can not be done under Section 4(1)(a) and has to be done under Section 4(1)(b) only - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (5) TMI 850
... ...
... ... ..... er the goods are consumed or not is not the concern of the appellant as long as the certificate is issued by the Indian Navy. We find from certificate No. MO(V)/CPRO/N5/01VEC0054 dated 17-9-2003, that the zinc ingots are exclusively used for the manufacture of lsquo sacrificial anode rsquo which are used on board of the vessel to protect the hull surface from corrosion arising due to it being in constant contact with sea water. It may be seen that the certificate issued by the Indian Navy is very categorical and it indicates that such ingots are used on the board of the vessel of the Indian navy, and the same is not disputed by the Revenue authorities. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the impugned order is incorrect and liable to set aside and we do so. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)
........
|
