|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 232 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 849
CENVAT credit - removal of inputs without raising invoices - conversion of unit into EOU - Rule 3(1) and 3(4) of CCR
-
2009 (5) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... ey had no mala fide intention for evasion of duty. We find that the respondent begin a Govt. company and using the goods for further captive consumption in the electric poles could not have had any mala fide intention of evasion of duty. In the case before us, we find that the respondent have correctly made out case on limitation before the lower authorities. The grounds of appeal as sought to be pressed into service by the learned DR would not carry the case of the revenue any further, as a Govt. company having filed monthly returns with the Authorities and the Authorities having full knowledge of the transactions, could have caused verification, which apparently they did not do so. We find that the revenue has not made out any case for demand of duty prior to March, 2004. 7. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the revenue. The said appeal is rejected. (Operative portion of the Order already pronounced in open Court on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2009 (5) TMI 847
... ...
... ... ..... duction based on the capacity. 6. We also, find that an identical issue came up before the Hon rsquo ble High Court of P and H in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v Dhiman Iron and Steel Inds 2007 (219) E.L.T. 67 (P and H) . We reproduce their lordships findings. ldquo 6. emsp A reference to the above provisions shows that a special scheme for levy of excise duty is laid down therein notwithstanding scheme of Section 3 of the Act. Annual capacity having been duly determined and the assessee having paid duty according to the said capacity, there is no provision by which a further duty can be demanded on the ground that assessee had done job work, which was nothing else but use of utilization of part of its manufacturing capacity. 7. We are, thus, unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises for consideration. rdquo 7. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. (Pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 846
... ...
... ... ..... to the show cause notice as well as they have submitted the Chartered Accountant rsquo s certificate. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that there is no suppression or mala fide intention to evade payment of duty. Hence, imposition of penalty under Rule 13(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not sustainable. It is well settled that the credit taken, but not utilised, is not liable to pay the interest. 3. In the present case, I find that the appellants categorically stated before the Original Authority that they have not utilised the credit, which was not refuted in the impugned order. It is noted that they have taken credit wrongly and debited voluntarily and, therefore, imposition of penalty is justified. In view of that, interest and penalty are not sustainable. Accordingly, the payment of interest and penalty are set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 14-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 845
Non-payment of 50% of the Additional Duty of Customs (ADC) of the 22 consignments cleared to DTA sale
-
2009 (5) TMI 844
... ...
... ... ..... tement dated 1-12-99 and she was found to have admitted the fact of receipt of 5 cases of said goods without any bills from Chittor. This is a clear evidence of her acquiring possessing and selling the said goods which, she had reason to believe, are liable to confiscation. Therefore, she is liable, to penalty under Rule 209 A of the Central Excise Rules. ldquo 4. On a careful consideration of the issue we find that the Smt. Swaroopa Rani had only purchased 5 packages of the goods. In our view this itself cannot be a strong ground for coming to a finding that the appellant would be liable for penalty under rule 209A of the C.E. Rules 1944. In fact, there is no evidence for her complicity in any of the offences alleged to have been committed by the main appellant. Consequently there is no merit, in the Order imposing a disproportionately high penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 843
... ...
... ... ..... ear 1987. We are reproducing the said registration under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 6.1 It has also been submitted that Ramco Industries manufacturing asbestos was established much later. It is obligatory on the part of the revenue to have shown that Ramco is indeed the brand name of another person with proper evidences. The appellants have produced evidence to show that the said brand name Ramco belongs to them. When this is the factual position, the appellants would not be violating the conditions of the said Notification. The finding of the Commissioner that they used the brand name of other, is not correct in the light of the submissions made by the appellants. The facts in the case of CCE v. M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in open Court on 1-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 834
... ...
... ... ..... certification service 4. For entitlement to input credit in respect of the rest of the services, they are covered by the various judicial decisions. Reliance was placed on the following decisions - (i) CCE, Hyderabad-IV v. Deloitte Tax Services India Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (11) S.T.R. 266 (Tri.-Bang.) (ii) Keltech Energies Limited v. CCE, Mangalore - 2009 (10) S.T.R. 280 (Tri.-Bang.) (iii) CCE v. Excel Crop Care Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 436 (Guj.) (iv)CCE, Nasik v. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 598 (Tri. - Mumbai) 5. On a careful consideration of the issue, we are of the view that prima facie, the applicants have a strong case on merits in view of the various judicial pronouncements on the issue. Consequently, we order total waiver of pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the appeal is decided. The stay order will continue even after lapse of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 831
CENVAT credit - C&F Agents service - Held that: - credit of service tax paid under C&F Agents service was incorrectly denied on the ground that the Board Circular came to be issued subsequent to the material period. The documents called debit notes had apparently contained all the particulars required to be provided in an invoice were adequate to avail CENVAT credit.
-
2009 (5) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... iled the Service Tax paid as input credit. Revenue proceeded against them on the ground that this cannot be treated as input services. 4. The learned Chartered Accountant invited our attention to the Stay Order No. 890/2007, dated 27-11-2007 2008 (224) E.L.T. 449 (Tribunal) wherein in their own case this Bench was pleased to order stay of the pre-deposit. 5. Prima facie, the appellants have a strong case on merit. In view of this, we order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal. No coercive action should be taken against the appellants even after expiry of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... eals) rightly dropped the demand under Section 78. In my view, demand of tax for the extended period was confirmed as there is a suppression of fact with intent to evade payment of duty and, accordingly, penalty under Section 78 of the Act is imposable. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand of duty for the extended period and dropped the penalty under Section 78, is contradictory. So, the matter is required to be examined on the facts. It appears from the impugned order that the respondents have neither replied to the Show Cause Notice, nor attended personal hearing before the original authority. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the respondents. Needless to say that the original authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 801
... ...
... ... ..... -NB against this part of the impugned order is dismissed and (b) set aside the remaining part of the impugned order-in-appeal dated 18-6-04 and also the impugned order-in-appeal dated 28-6-04 in respect of duty demands for the period from Jan., 1999 to May, 2000 and Jan., 2002 to Oct., 2002 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo adjudication for re-determining the assessable value of the goods cleared by the Respondents, under Rule 7 of CEVR, 1975/Rule 11 of CEVR, 2000 and re-determining the differential duty and also the quantum of penalty under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944/Rule 25(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002, which should be in accordance with the re-determined duty demand. 7. The Revenue rsquo s appeal No. E/4552/04, E/4553/04, E/4554/04, E/4570/04 and E/4590/04 and the Cross Objection No. CO/398-399/04-Ex. and CO/400-403/04-Ex filed by the Respondents stand disposed off as above. (Pronounced in the open Court on 26-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 799
Demand - Non-production of re-warehousing certificate ... ... ... ... ..... the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. We have heard both sides. The certificate of re-warehousing was produced belatedly. However, Rule 156B itself provides that where duty on goods has been paid and the re-warehousing certificate is produced by the consignor to the satisfaction of the proper officer and the consignor shall make an application to the proper officer and be entitled to refund of the duty so paid. In other words, even if the appellants are directed to pay the duty as per Rule 156B, there is no dispute that they were automatically entitled to refund. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order upholding the demand and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 797
Penalty - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... hority did not impose any penalty. However, on appeal filed by the department Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed a penalty. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has observed that there was no intention to evade payment of duty on the part of the appellants but penal provisions under Rule 13 and Rule 15 do not require ldquo mens rea rdquo . The learned DR supports the Order-in-Appeal and contends that since the credit was taken irregular penalty was justified. 2. emsp I find that the facts clearly show that the irregular credit happened because of a human mistake and there was absolutely no intention. The appellants have paid the duty primarily and also have paid the interest thereon. That is also to be noted that the mistake was found by the appellants themselves and intimated to the department. Under these circumstances a lenient view is called for and accordingly the penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside and appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 795
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ed below - ldquo Replacement/Repair of imported/Indigenous Goods 6.17(c) Goods or parts thereof on being imported/indigenously procured and found defective or otherwise unfit for use or which have been damaged or become defective subsequently may be returned and replacement obtained or destroyed. In the event of replacement, the goods may be brought back from the foreign suppliers or their authorized agents in India or indigenous suppliers. However, destruction shall not apply to precious and semi-precious stones and precious metals. rdquo 3. emsp On a careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Revenue has applied the wrong provision for demanding duty. Prima facie, the applicants have a strong case on merits. Consequently, we order full waiver of the entire dues demanded in the impugned order. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the appeal is decided. The stay order will continue even after lapse of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 794
Interest - Delayed payment of duty - Penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... is shy statement, collusion or suppression of facts against the assessee. It only alleged that the assessee contravened the provisions of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 by wrongly taking CENVAT credit. Any intent to evade payment of duty was not attributed to the assessee. Thus the requirement under Rule 15(2) of contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder with intention to evade payment of duty by the assessee was not satisfied in this case for imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC. In the circumstances, the assessee rsquo s prayer for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2.75 lakhs has to be acceded to and the Revenue rsquo s prayer for enhancing the penalty to an amount equal to CENVAT credit wrongly taken requires to be turned down. 5. emsp In the result, the Revenue rsquo s appeal is dismissed and the assessee rsquo s appeal is allowed only to the extent of setting aside the penalty. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 793
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... ntion to the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order-in-Appeal No. 113/2008 dated 13-10-2008 wherein a similar issue has been examined and order was passed in favour of the assessee. Further, our attention was invited to Circular No. 796/29/2004-CX., dated 4-9-2004 wherein it has been clarified that value in respect of the petroleum products cleared from the refineries on or after 6-9-2004 should be determined under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with the Valuation Rules. In this case, the applicant has discharged the duty liability on the basis of the Transaction Value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. In view of this, prima facie, we do not find any merit in the demand. Consequently, we order waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire sums demanded in the impugned order. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the disposal of the appeal. The stay order will continue even after lapse of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 791
Rectification of mistake - Shikakai powder - Classification of ... ... ... ... ..... nd could not be validly made even for the normal period as the applicant had not been put on notice by the original authority about the liability to duty of shikakai powder under CSH 3305.90. We are also in agreement with the applicant in their submission that fine and penalty also could not be ordered as there was no proposal to classify shikakai under CSH 3305.90 as decided by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we allow this ROM petition and modify paragraph 11 of our final order No. 232 to 238/2009 dated 5-3-09, which will now read as under - 11. emsp In the result we hold as follows - (i) Shikakai powder is excisable. It is classifiable under CSH 3305.90. (ii) Arapputhool is not excisable. Considering that MMN and other appellants were not put on notice about the proposal to classify shikakai powder under CSH 3305.9, entire demand of duty as well as penalties on MMN and others are set aside. Appeals are allowed on the above terms. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 789
Refund - Cenvat/Modvat ... ... ... ... ..... nd claim. The respondents voluntarily debited the amount on 31-7-1997 from Cenvat account against pending dues. There is no reason to raise the demand of the amount within 6 months from that date by the department. The amount lying in their Cenvat Account on 31-7-97, if not debited against pending dues, could have been lapsed in view of the Rule 57F(17) of the Rules, which they are not entitled to take credit in their Cenvat Account in October, 2003. 9. emsp In view of the above discussions, I find that the proposal in the show cause notices with regard to refund of Cenvat Credit erroneously allowed by way of re-credit in their Cenvat account in the month of October, 2003 liable to be recovered along with interest are justified. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and the demand of duty as proposed in the show cause notices along with interest are confirmed. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court on 25-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 788
Cenvat/Modvat - Declaration - Demand ... ... ... ... ..... n both the appellant assessees, they have stopped manufacturing and hence the appellants undertake not to claim either the balance credit after adjustment of the duty demands against the same or to seek cash refund, with a view to finalizing these long pending disputes. 15. emsp Taking into account the calculations jointly made by both sides and taking into account the undertaking given for not seeking balance duty credit or cash refund, we find that the duty demands in both the cases are less than the duty credits admissible to both the units after deducting 8 of the value of the exempted goods. Hence, in our view, no net demand survives in respect of either of the appellant assessees. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside in respect of duty demands and since the duty demands do not survive, the demand of interest and the imposition of penalty on the appellants are also set aside. 16. emsp All the four appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court
........
|
