Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2009 2009 2009 (9) Central Excise - 2009 (9) 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 184 Records

• 2009 (9) TMI 1012
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... tances of this case, keeping the question of law open, civil appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 1011
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ioner of Central Excise, Goa Vs Crompton Greaves Ltd. 2008 (226) E.L.T.117 (Tribunal) , Nestle India Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Goa 2008 (223) E.L.T. 309 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut Vs Shree Sidhbali Steels Ltd. 2009 (235) E.L.T. 182 (Tri.-Del.) . 3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I hold that credit of the amount in dispute is admissible to the appellants and, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 1010
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... placed reliance on CCE & C, Aurangabad vs. Wockhardt Ltd. 2009 - TIOL-1308-CESTAT-MUM wherein on the identical facts this Tribunal has held that Section 11AC is not applicable where there is no finding of mens rea against the assessee. He further placed reliance on CCE, C & ST, Nasik vs. Jyoti Structures Ltd. 2009-TIOL-1159-CESTAT-MUM wherein it was held that wrongly availed exemption notification no mens rea proved by the Revenue no cause for imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the CEA, 1944. 10. I have gone through the submissions made by both sides and I find that in an identical issue in the case of CCE & C, Aurangabad vs. Wockhardt Ltd. (supra) it was held that Section 11AC is not applicable when there is no mens rea against the assessee. In this case also the Revenue has failed to establish any mens rea against the assessee / respondent. 11. Considering the same, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 1007
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... R Delay condoned. Civil Appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 1002
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... t the services of repairing, chipping, cleaning, painting etc. rendered by the Respondent on the vessel at Mazgaon Docks Ltd do not fall within the meaning of Port Services as defined u/sec. 65(82) and Sec.65(105) (zn) of the Finance Act, 1994? 2. Respondent waives service. To be heard along with Customs Appeal no.226 of 2009

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 951
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - penalty u/r 25 (1)(b) and (d) - clandestine manufacture and removal - fake invoices - demand of duty with interest and penalties.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 945
  

  Whether Education Cess levied and collected under Section 91 of the Finance Act, 2004 can be considered as a duty of excise for the purpose of grant of refund in cash or by way of self credit under N/N. 56/2002-CE - the decision in the case of COMMR. OF CUS. & C. EX., JAMMU Versus BHARAT BOX FACTORY LTD. [2008 (4) TMI 254 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT] contested, where question is directly related to rate of duty, hence only remedy open to the Commissioner is to move the Supreme Court and this Court cannot entertain these applications under Section 35G, and the appeal was dismissed - Held that: - The appeal is admitted for hearing.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 942
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... as been decided by allowing the benefit of the cited Notification No. 12/2003. We find that in the cited case after taking into account the amount paid towards the sales tax in respect of the material component, the Tribunal has allowed the benefit of the cited notification No. 12/2003. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision in the light of the cited decision in the case of M/s. PLA Tyres Works vs. CCE (ST), Trichy (supra), the appellants will be at liberty to produce necessary evidence that they are paying sales tax on the material components. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 939
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... y condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 934
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e same appellant for the period from October 2001 to March 2003 came before the Tribunal and it has been held by the order dated 04.07.2008 reported in 2009 (235) ELT 850 (Tri. Del.), that the appellant was not eligible for the credit on merits but the duty was demandable only within the normal period of limitation and that no penalty was imposable. In the present case, it is submitted that the duty demand is within the normal period of limitation. The learned Advocate seeks vacation of the penalty imposed on them. 4. Learned DR agrees that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts of their case decided by the Tribunal on 04.07.2008 cited supra. 5. Following the reasons stated in the earlier order dated 04.07.2008 of the Tribunal, we hold that the demand of duty is sustainable but the penalty is not imposable. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected in so far as demand of duty and interest is concerned. As far as the penalty is concerned, the same is set aside.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 925
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... uld be taken on that application within a period of four weeks, if not already taken, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. On this statement being made the learned advocate Mr. Paresh Dave for the petitioners does not press this petition at this stage. The petition stands disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Notice is discharged.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 924
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sue relates to whether an amount of 8 /10 is payable in respect of waste and byproduct, arising in the course of manufacture, which are either not excisable or exempted. 3. Shri G. Natarajan, Ld. Advocate, states that this issue has been decided in favour of the appellant assessees by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Rallis India Ltd. vs. UOI - 2009 (233) ELT 301 (Bom.). The department's only contention is that the department has gone in SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the cited decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has decided the issue in favour of the appellant assessee, and there is no stay on the operation of the said order, following the ratio of the same, we allow the appeals No. E/478/2005, E/265, 935/2006 and E/814/07 filed by the appellant assessee and dismiss the appeal No.E/309/2009 filed by the department. Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 916
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... back and vide Final Order No.1101/09 dt. 1.9.09 in appeal No.E/528/07, the penalty has been set aside by the Tribunal. I find that when the appeal of the assessee came up for hearing, neither side pointed out that there is an appeal by the department against the very same impugned order. The Registry also did not list both the appeals together as is required to be done. In any case, since the issue of penalty has already been decided by setting aside the same, the department s appeal has become infructuous. Hence the same is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 915
  

  Pre-deposit - section 35F of the Central Excise Act - clandestine manufacture and removal - demand based on consumption of electricity - Held that:- There was no satisfactory explanation regarding excessive consumption of electricity during the relevant period by the appellants. Merely by relying upon certain formula and certificates stated to have been issued by State of Rajasthan and contending that the production of M/s. Shree Sharma Steel Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. was from ultra modern imported machinery with minimum requirement of operation whereas the factory of the appellants being manually operated is of no help, there was no other material placed before the adjudicating authority to disbelieve the contention that excessive consumption of electricity discloses clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods from the factory - there is no prima facie case being made out in support of the contention that the findings are not based on tangible evidence.

  In exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not a case which calls for any interference - there is no scope of interference - appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 913
  

  Pre-deposit - Held that: - It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a Government of India undertaking. Solvency is beyond doubt. The question sought to be raised in appeal, no doubt, needs serious consideration by the Tribunal, however, one cannot say that no prima facie; case was made out by the petitioner for complete waiver of the pre-deposit. As a matter of fact, as per the instructions of the Board, petitioner is exempted from furnishing any security - the direction of pre-deposit of ₹ 1,11,67,333/- stands substituted with that of general bond for the full amount of duty - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 872
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e, Calcutta which was not supplied/furnished to the merchant exporter or manufacturer. The argument raised before me is that dehors the letter of DGV, Calcutta, AR-4 produced by the respondents and shipping bill under the DEPB scheme, would not constitute proof of export, and therefore is not relevant for clearances under export for Bangladesh. However, this is a new ground which is put forth at the Bar which is not the ground on which show cause notice was issued or adjudication order was passed. The entire case of the Revenue is that fake documents were produced before the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner in order to obtain proof of export admittance certificate. There is nothing on record to establish that the documents produced by the respondents for the purpose of obtaining proof of export admittance certificate were fake or bogus. Therefore, the case of the Department fails. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 871
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the adjudication order. As far as Revenue rsquo s appeal was concerned, he allowed it by way of remand to decide afresh the issue of penalty. Hence this appeal by the assessees. 2. I have heard both sides. I find that there is no dispute, as seen from the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, that there was no simultaneous availment of 50 Cenvat credit (second instalment) and benefit of depreciation under the Income Tax Act. This comes out from the fact that, admittedly, the 50 credit taken was reversed. This being so, it was not open to the Department to confirm the demand as the assessees had not contravened the provisions of Rule 4(4) by availing both Cenvat credit and Income tax depreciation for the second instalment of 50 credit which is the subject matter of the SCN and the impugned order. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order insofar as it upholds the demand of Rs. 3,63,467/- together with interest, and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 869
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... for production of intermediates on behalf of the appellants. The job worker has paid the duty on such tools and the appellants have taken the credit. The Department has denied the credit on the ground that the tools have not come back to the appellants. Shri P. Karthikeyan, learned consultant appearing for the appellants, states that subsequently all the impugned tools have come back to the appellants and that they will be in a position to show evidence of the same if the matter is remanded. 3. In consideration of the foregoing, we modify the impugned order and allow the credit in respect of inputs used for testing, and in respect of the tools we remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision. He shall allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants and also give them an opportunity to produce evidence to satisfy that the impugned tools have come to the appellants. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 867
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ous one. Every case of shortage cannot be presumed to be a case of clandestine removal. The charge of clandestine removal requires to be established by proper investigation. In this case, admittedly, no evidence like any private records indicating clandestine clearance of goods or seizure of clandestinely removed goods from the premises of the dealers etc. was relied up on. Therefore, the finding that the goods found shortage should be presumed to have been cleared clandestinely cannot be sustained in the absence of any evidence indicative of such clandestine removal. Undoubtedly, the charge of improper maintenance of accounts is established. 7. In view of the above, the appeal of the party in so far as it relates to demand of duty and order for recovery of interest is concerned, the same is rejected. Penalty of Rs. 1,98,576 imposed under Section 11AC is modified as penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules. 8. Appeal is disposed off on the above terms.

  ---

• 2009 (9) TMI 866
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s tax, the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court rsquo s decision in the case of Bombay Tyres International (cited supra) states that when a manufacturer has more than one factory and the goods are sold at the same price, the deduction allowed under the said judgment can be computed and allowed on the basis of such uniform price. Shri S. Ignitious, Ld. Advocate submits that this is what the appellants have done and since the deduction of taxes cannot be computed on each transaction, they have adopted a reasonable basis which has approval of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court under the decision cited above. 7. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the deductions claimed by the respondents are reasonable and hence, the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority in respect of the four issues does not require any interference. Accordingly, we reject the appeal filed by the department. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

  ---

12345........ 10