|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 166 Records
-
2010 (10) TMI 379 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Concessional rate of duty - Mushrooms - The processed mushrooms which were exported were not similar to the goods cleared for home consumption - The concessional rate of duty is available only if the goods were similar to the goods exported outside India - Notification No. 2/95-C.E., dated 4-1-95 uses the expression “similar” - The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding, after noting that the fresh mushrooms and processed mushrooms eventhough classifiable under separate chapter headings, belong to the same class of goods and therefore both are similar - The impugned order uphold and reject the appeal.
-
2010 (10) TMI 376 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund claim on the basis of supplementary invoice - whether provisional assessment - As the lower appellate authority has rightly held that the refund claim, has been filed beyond period of one year from the date of supplementary invoices is correct view.
-
2010 (10) TMI 369 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Job work - the goods manufactured by the Appellant on job work basis were being cleared by the merchant-manufacturers from the Appellant’s factory itself - According to Department, the duty was to be paid on the sale price charged by the merchant-manufacturers from their customers - As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in case of Pawan Biscuits Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE, Patna (2000 -TMI - 45451 - SUPREME COURT ), the goods manufactured on job-work basis were sold by the merchant-manufacturers at the Appellant’s factory premises, the duty is payable only on the cost of raw materials plus job charges including job-worker’s profit, not on the merchant-manufacturer’s selling price as it includes merchant-manufacturer’s profit margin also. Demand - Comparable price of identical goods - Duty demand has been confirmed relying upon the comparable price of identical goods - In this case, the assessable value has been determined on the basis of the “comparable price of identical goods”, which is not correct - The order does not discuss as to how the goods, whose price has been adopted, are identical to the goods under assessment - There is also no discussion of the Appellant’s plea that the expenses incurred on freight & octroi are included in the cost of the raw materials - Therefore, in respect of this part of the duty demand, the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo decision. Demand - Limitation - Suppression of facts - Apex Court in case of Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. CCE, Bombay (1995 -TMI - 44049 - SUPREME COURT) has held that since the word, “suppression” in proviso to Section 11A(1) is accompanied by strong words as “fraud” or “collusion”, it has to be construed strictly, that mere omission to give correct information is not suppression of facts unless it was deliberate to evade the payment of duty - Thus, the impugned order does not discuss as to how the Appellant’s act or omission in this case constitutes “suppression of facts” - Demand set aside
-
2010 (10) TMI 361 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver of pre-deposit - The Tribunal directing the appellant to deposit Rs. 2 lakh by way of pre-deposit - The legal issue involved in the appeal before the Tribunal is whether the Zink Dross is an excisable commodity - Tribunal in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and Collector of Central Excise v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., governing the issue - In the circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of total exemption from payment of duty at this stage - The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on its own merits without insisting for pre-deposit.
-
2010 (10) TMI 349 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - additional evidence can be taken into consideration only if they satisfy the test of relevance, veracity and credibility. Additional evidence in appeal is permissible if it is absolutely necessary for substantial justice between the parties - the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal afresh within three months from the date of communication of this order
-
2010 (10) TMI 342 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation - The appellants who were manufacturers of synthetic sandwich spindle tapes and flat transmission belts, supplied New Year diaries to their dealers/buyers at 25% of the cost of the diaries - The amount collected by the appellants towards supply of the diaries has been included in the assessable value of the excisable goods by the Department leading to this appeal - Assessee appeal is allowed as per the decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Punjab Tractors Ltd.- Hence, the cost of such diaries cannot be added to the assessable value.
-
2010 (10) TMI 341 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Small scale exemption - SSI - The claim of small scale exemption by the respondents on the ground that their factory is located in a rural area - The original authority had denied the exemption to the respondents - However, the lower appellate authority on an appeal from the respondents has allowed the benefit. The District Collector’s Office clarified that the jurisdictional Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue certificate regarding classification of village - The jurisdictional Tahsildar of Ponneri Taluk has clarified that the impugned Athur village is situated in rural area - Clarification obtained from the jurisdictional revenue authority, find no substance in the department’s appeal against the order passed by the lower appellate authority - Hence, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the department’s appeal.
-
2010 (10) TMI 340 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Whether the goods lying with the transporter which were yet to be received in the factory can be considered as goods lying in stock - Rule 9A of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Circular No. B3/3/2003-TRU, dated 28th March 2003 issued by the Board co - referring to the Board Circular, it would be clear that even those goods which are stored at the place other than the registered place would also include to be goods in stock - the address of the said premises or where such goods are kept, must be declared by the assessee in the stock declaration. - the appellants were not able to disclose exact address of storage of the goods as they were in possession of the transporter - Demand upheld. As regards the issue relating to penalty, it was sought to be contended that the declarations were filed as to how the goods were sought to be procured by the appellants - the goods were yet to be received were claimed to be in stock with the appellants with the sole intention to avail the credit arising out of the duty paid on such goods, it would obviously disclose that the appellants were attempting to avail credit unlawfully - The provisions of law in relation to the matter in issue were very clear and there was no scope for any mis- understanding in that regard - Accordingly the appeals are dismissed
-
2010 (10) TMI 329 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat credit - Whether impugned items, namely, Lattice Steel Structure, Lattice Type Transmission Towers, Hot Dip Lattice Tower, Lattice Type Tower are entitled for availing cenvat credit or not - The impugned goods are nothing but accessories of electrical items as defined by the Apex Court in the case of Mehra Bros v. Joint Commercial Officer wherein it was held that ‘accessory’ means an object or device that it is not essential in itself but that which adds to the beauty or convenience or effectiveness of something else or is supplementary or secondary or something of greater or primary importance which assists in operating or controlling or may serve as aid to a accessory - Hence, these items are qualified as accessories of capital goods and the same are entitled for input credit. Held that: the finding of the lower appellate authority that the impugned goods are accessories to a group of machineries is correct - Hence,do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order - The appeal field by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2010 (10) TMI 323 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund of unutilized cenvat credit - Limitation - The original refund claim was filed by the assessee on 31-12-2004 and subsequently resubmitted on 28-2-05 - Revenue’s contention that the said refund claim was filed with the Superintendent and was received by the Deputy Commissioner on 30-9-05 - That the Revenue accepts that the original refund claim was filed in the Division office on 30-1-04 but their contention is that the same only bears initial of some person without any mention of name or designation of the said person nor it has stamp of Division office - They cannot be held that the refund claim bears the acknowledgment of the Division - The letter dated 13-1-05 written by Deputy Commissioner requiring the respondents to resubmit refund application alongwith relevant documents is not being doubted by the revenue in the Memo of appeal - The genuineness of the refund claim filed on 13-1-04 cannot be doubted - No merits are found in the Revenue’s appeal - The same is accordingly rejected.
-
2010 (10) TMI 318 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Special audit u/s 14A - It is seen that the above order of the Commissioner is an administrative order passed in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Central Excise Act, 1944 to conduct such audit of the appellant unit in as much as, they had surrendered their Central Excise registration - The said order has not resulted in confirmation of demand of duty or imposition of penalty upon the assessee. - Stay application dismissed as infructuous.
-
2010 (10) TMI 316 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty under Section 11AC - Clandestine removal of the goods - The lower appellate authority finds that there is no evidence on records that the appellants engaged in the activity of clandestine removal of the goods - The shortages during the course of visit of the preventive officers have been explained by the appellant as per their entries in the records - find that the ingredients of Section 11AC have not been invoked and in the absence of ingredients-fraud, collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of provisions of the Act or the Rules, no penalty can be attracted under Section 11AC - Hence, the impugned order confirming the penalty is set aside.
-
2010 (10) TMI 312 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Classification - Valuation - Transaction value - it was noticed that the appellants were not including the cost of drums supplied by the buyers of malto dextrine syrup in the assessable value while determining the duty liability - It further proceeds to enumerate the factors elements which are to be included in addition to the price to determine the assessable value as the law contemplates by section 4 of the Act - Undoubtedly, such collection of charges by the dealer could also be to the advantage of the dealer to discharge post sales obligations/liability arose under contract of sale - The expression ‘transaction value’ is the guiding principle in the process of ascertaining the assessable value of a product - Being so, the contention that the value of the packing material supplied by the buyer of malto dextrine syrup w.e.f. 1-7-2000 would not form part of the assessable value cannot be accepted Regarding the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 313/1977-C.E., dated 8-11-1977 - Merely because both the products are classifiable under the same chapter heading, it does not permit the Tribunal or the statutory authorities to expand the scope of exemption notification Regarding the limitation - The investigation carried out by the department revealed for the first time on perusal of the invoices on 12-7-2002 that the appellants had not included the cost of the drum supplied by the buyers of the malto dextrine in the assessable value of the final product Regarding penalty - the various decisions delivered by the different Benches of the Tribunal were contrary to the view taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the point of concept of the transaction value - Appeal is partly allowed
-
2010 (10) TMI 310 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - Rule 12CC to the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Search and seizure - the evasion of duty alleged, is not more than Rs. 2.87 lacs and on such an admitted case, the provision for preventive action could not be invoked in view of monetary limit of Rs. 10 lacs of alleged evasion - This being the settled legal position, mere fact that a provision was made for a preventive action, cannot be held to be arbitrary or beyond the scope of the Statute - Normal principle of law is that the authority which takes a decision should itself give a hearing and even if such procedure is deviated from, the authority hearing must consider the view point of the affected parties with regard to recommendations made to it, which implies that the adverse material which is made foundation of the order is confronted to the affected parties - Petition is allowed
-
2010 (10) TMI 300 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Duty evasion - Clandestine production - it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court - It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper - the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt - Even in the present appeal, nothing is produced or pointed out to rebut the conclusion of the trial Court - ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same - Appeal is dismissed by way of remand to the trial court
-
2010 (10) TMI 290 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Cenvat credit - Input - denial of Cenvat credit on HR plates, coils and jointing sheet - Held that: the appellants own case, for earlier period, this Tribunal has allowed the credit to the appellants and same has not been challenged by the department - Thus, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit on HR plates, coils and jointing sheets. Cenvat credit - Input - Input service credit on running and maintenance and repair of motor car and rent a cab which are used by the company’s employees for transporting their employees from the residences to the business premises which is an input service as held by this Tribunal in the case of J.K. Cement Works - Hence, the appellant is entitled to input service on this inputs. Cenvat credit - Input - Regarding credit of mandap keeper service, the hall had been booked by the appellant to held their Annual General Meeting which is definitely a business activity - Hence they are entitled to get the credit of the sa.e
-
2010 (10) TMI 284 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Valuation of shoap - Lux soaps manufactured by the respondents and sold in a multi-piece pack of four pieces with the package strip bearing the caption “Buy 3 get 1 free” - The MRP of the multi-piece pack was marked as Rs. 42/- and each of the individual soap cake was marked with an MRP of Rs. 14/- marked on it - the Tribunal’s decision in CCE, Trichy v. Henkel Spic India Ltd., holding in similar situation that there is no substance in the department’s appeal wanting to assess the soap cakes on the basis of price of individual soap cakes.
-
2010 (10) TMI 283 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Failure to make payment through electronic mode - Penalty - Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - the default of the respondents are a technical one and for that only penalty be imposed at once and there after they are regularly following the procedure by making the payment through internet banking - Accordingly, the minimum penalty under Rule 27 is to be imposed i.e. only Rs. 2,000/- in both the cases - Accordingly decided in the favour of the assessee
-
2010 (10) TMI 279 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
waiver of pre-deposit - pre-deposit of the duty amount by way of debit in MODVAT account can be accepted as sufficient compliance with Section 35F and, therefore, the assessee need not be called upon to make any payment towards penalty through TR-6 challan - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (10) TMI 278 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Demand of interest - Rate of interest - The Revenue demanded the interest at the rate of 2% per month as per Notification 12/2003-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2003 for the default period - The said Notification enhanced the rate of interest from 15% P.A. to 2% per month - the respondent paid the duty on 16-4-2003 - The Notification provides that “if the assessee fails to pay the amount of duty by the due date, he shall be liable to pay the outstanding amount along with interest at the rate of 2% - This provision came into force from 1-4-2003 - Hence, amount of duty paid after the due date shall be liable for interest at the rate of 2% w.e.f. 1-4-2003 - the appeal is allowed in favour of Revenue.
....
|
