|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 338 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1827
... ...
... ... ..... a person or for detaining a person. 9. I also consider that the action of the officers in taking the Respondent from hotel to the office for inquiry and thereafter arresting him after the inquiry were within the scope of duties and the officers enjoyed protection of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and it cannot be said that their act was not done in good faith merely on the complaint of the complainant and at the most they could be charged under Section 20 of Central Excise Act, by the Court where trial of excise case was going on. 10. It is observed that learned ACMM had acted illegally in entertaining complaint under provisions of IPC and instead he should have been taken action only under Section 20 of Central Excise Act in view of Section 40 of the Central Excise Act and in any case, if he had to take cognizance of the offences under IPC, sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. was must. 11. The petition is allowed. The order dated 1st December 2009 is hereby set aside.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1793
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Leave granted Hearing expedited.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1780
... ...
... ... ..... iving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the order, we propose to pass in this appeal, we deem it unncessary to state the facts, giving rise to the present appeal. Learned counsel for both the parties submit that insofar as the question of reconsideration of the matter on the question of classification is concerned, the scope of the remand may not be confined only to the parameters laid down in the impugned order and the parties may be permitted to urge before the adjudicating authority all the grounds, as may be available to them under the law. In light of the submission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of the appeal with a direction that it will be open to both the parties to urge all the grounds as may be available to them in accordance with law which are relevant for the purpose of adjudication by the Commissioner on classification of the goods in question. The appeal stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1770
... ...
... ... ..... amshedpur Beverages”, reported in 2007 (214) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). 7. To the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent, no rejoinder is filed by the Revenue. We have, therefore, no reason to discard the averments made therein or to dispute the documents produced along with such affidavit. 8. Resultantly, we find that the issue involved is not a recurring one, so far as the present respondent is concerned. Further, the respondent has already paid more duty than demanded by the Department. Therefore, the entire issue being revenue neutral, while keeping the question open, present tax appeal can be disposed of. 9. In the result, in view of the above observations, keeping all the questions, raised by the respondent, open, to be judged in an appropriate proceeding, if need so arises in future, present Tax Appeal is Disposed of, making it clear that this order shall not be taken to mean our approval of the observations made by the Tribunal in the impugned order.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1762
... ...
... ... ..... ition is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1751
... ...
... ... ..... oming on record repeatedly when the same is being adjourned either on the request of appellants or otherwise in the interest of justice. 2. In view of the above, we find no reason to keep the appeal on board and the same is accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1743
... ...
... ... ..... nce grants permission to clear the goods for DTA sale and the goods are accordingly sold in the DTA, the Development Commissioner cannot review his own order, because in the absence of power to review is specifically granted, the Development Commissioner cannot review his own order. In these circumstances in our opinion the issues raised in this writ petition are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court as in the present case also the Development Commissioner has sought to rectify/review his own order, that too after the original order was fully implemented. Moreover, it is not the case of the Revenue, that the original order was passed on account of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the Petitioner. 8. In these circumstances the impugned order-in-original dated 8th June, 2009 as also the order of the Appellate Committee dated 8th September, 2010 are quashed and set aside. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1733
... ...
... ... ..... ssee as regards the applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, although raised before the Commissioner, was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal have gone on the question of absence of machinery provisions for recovery of duty at 8 . 5. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise to consider the issue as regards the applicability of Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules as well, as the subsequent amendment to the provisions on the relaxation of Modvat credit and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law taking into account, the decision of this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 1609 and 1610 of 2005, dated 19-7-2010 and C.M.A. No. 2080 of 2005, dated 2-7-2010. 6. The civil miscellaneous appeal is disposed of. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1732
... ...
... ... ..... ourse, is wholly and exclusively industrial alcohol' (SCC p. 742, para 23)." 26. Eventually Hon'ble the Supreme Court found that the opinion as expressed by the High Court cannot be sustained and while setting aside the same, the matter was remitted to the High Court for consideration afresh. 27. From the above, the inference which could have been easily drawn is that the industrial alcohol cannot be subject matter of any regulation or control by a State, it being not alcoholic liquor for human consumption. 28. Accordingly, it is held that the impost imposed by the State Government under Rule 22 of the Rules whereby the permit fee for issue of permit for denatured spirit has been enhanced from 30 paisa per bulk litre to 60 paisa per bulk litre is bad. As a corollary, the respondents are directed to refund the permit fees collected by them on denatured spirit purchased by the petitioner under the amended rules. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1715
... ...
... ... ..... rd the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the orders on record, we find that the Tribunal was prompted to delete the penalty under sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ, on the ground that the entire duty along with interest was paid by 31-7-1999, by the assessee. The Commissioner also, in his appellate order, recorded that the appellant did not deposit the amount of ₹ 6,00,000/- by due date i.e. 6-9-1999, but, instead deposited such amount on 31-7-2009. It, thus, becomes clear that instead of depositing the duty within the first half of the month, as required under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZQ, the assessee did deposit the amount before the end of the month, that too with interest. 4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any defect in the order passed by the Tribunal, which considering the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 96ZQ, in the facts of the case, reduced the penalty. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed, accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1704
... ...
... ... ..... 8,150/- on the basis of the Order-in-Original dated 22nd December, 2000 which came to be rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 10th May, 2002. As a consequence of the restoration of the order of Commissioner, the refund claim filed by the petitioners would stand revived and the respondents herein would be required to process the same in accordance with law including the claim of interest under section 11BB of the Act. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 04th March, 2002 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 22nd December, 2000 passed by the 2nd respondent stands restored. As a further consequence, the refund application dated 8th March, 2001 also stands restored and the same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with law including the claim for interest under section 11BB of the Act. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1672
Valuation - Clearance to sister concerns at less rates as compared to price charged to independent buyers - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus SPECIAL STEEL LTD. [2010 (8) TMI 779 - CESTAT-MUMBAI] contested - Held that: - appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1669
... ...
... ... ..... er, which order was confirmed by this Court and all Misc. applications filed before several authorities were rejected and confirmed by this Court as also the Supreme Court and restoration application was rejected by CESTAT vide order dated 10-6-2008?” 2. Mr. Jetly, counsel for the Revenue seeks Interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Counsel for the respondents seeks time to take instructions. 3. S.O. to 16-3-2011. 4. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad interim relief in terms for prayer clause (b).
-
2011 (3) TMI 1668
... ...
... ... ..... ted 02.05.2008 and submitted that the authority below having considered the matter from all the angles, there is no case for total waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned. 5. For the reasons stated in the order passed today in Excise Stay Application No. 1421-1422 of 2010 in the matter of A-One Laminators & Delhi Laminators Pvt. Ltd, and in the facts and circumstances disclosed from the record of the case, we do not find prima-facie case having been made out for total waiver of the duty demanded under the impugned order. We, therefore, direct the appellants to deposit 60 of the amount demanded under the impugned order while waiving the interest amount till the disposal of the appeal. The amount shall be deposited within eight (8) weeks. For compliance on 27.06.2011. The Excise stay application No. 1570 of 2010 should be listed alongwith Excise Stay Application Nos. 1421-1422 of 2010 in E/A No. 1388-1389 of 2010 for compliance report as well as for final hearing.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1660
... ...
... ... ..... done. The petitioners shall till disposal of the appeals before the Tribunal and subject to further orders, if any, of the Tribunal continue to submit monthly statements and make payment of 50 of duty in cash and furnish bank guarantees, securing the balance 50 of the duty thereon as per the directions contained in the order dated 2nd March, 2007. It is made clear that all bank guarantees furnished pursuant to the orders of this Court shall be kept renewed. The bank guarantees shall be renewed at least one month before expiry thereof, upon notice to the respondent no.1, failing which the concerned bank guarantees might be invoked. Needless to mention that the bank guarantees as also the cash deposit shall abide by the result of the appeals pending before the Tribunal. Affidavits not having been called for, the allegations in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted. All parties are to act on a signed photostat copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1651
... ...
... ... ..... o. Even though rules have undergone modifications, the principles underlying availment of cenvat credit remain the same. Therefore this circular issued by the Board is applicable to the present case. We find in the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahadev Industries reported in 2000 (115) ELT 452 (Tri.), this Tribunal had taken a view that ownership of inputs is not a requirement of law. But in this case there is no dispute that appellants did purchase the goods and there is absolutely no evidence to show that even one transaction out of several is not genuine and goods have not been received but only bills have been raised. Since there is no evidence to show that inputs have not been received and in all the cases invoices issued by the 1st/2nd stage dealer show the name of the appellant as consignee and credit has been taken on that basis. We find that the impugned order is not sustainable and accordingly set aside the same and allow the appeal. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1649
Benefit of treatment of value received as cum duty - quantification of duty - reduced penalty of 25% - Held that: - question is based purely on facts. Tribunal, as noted, observed that there is no evidence to show that value received by assessee was excluding duty - Further question of reduced penalty was considered by this Court in somewhat similar situation in case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-II v. Mahalaxmi Industries [2010 (2) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that If the duty amount with interest is not paid in time and even reduced penalty of 25% of the duty amount is not paid in time and option is not given to the respondent assessee, we have taken the view that such option should be given to the assessee and period of 30 days would commence from the date of giving such option - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1604
... ...
... ... ..... resh consideration. We expect the appellants to co-operate in the adjudication proceedings. We direct the appellants to make further submissions on various points within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall, if necessary, conduct verification with the Electricity Board and result of such verification shall be made available to the appellants. Copies of the statements which have been relied upon in the show-cause notice shall also be made available to the appellants within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The Commissioner shall grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a decision in the matters. 10.We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. Both sides are at liberty to raise all points before the Commissioner. 11.The denovo proceedings should be completed expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1603
... ...
... ... ..... n promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation also has to fail for want of challenge to the Policy,2007 on which its case is founded. As 2007 Policy in the opinion of this Court does not ensure the benefit of exemption/incentives to pan masala not having tobacco, these two doctrines are of no avail to it. 14. On a totality of the considerations, the observations and findings of this Court as recorded in the judgment and order dated 10.12.2010 based on Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003, Schedule IX thereof and the determination in R.C. Tobacco (Supra) so far as those relate to the applicant’s product pan masala without tobacco are hereby recalled. The adjudication on other counts is sustained. The conclusions recorded herein read in conjunction with those in the judgment and order under review to the exclusions as alluded hereinabove warrant the rejection of WP(C) No.749/2010. Ordered accordingly. The review petition in the ultimate analysis is rejected. No costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1601
... ...
... ... ..... e and that of CESTAT as well as from the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the present respondent had reversed the cenvat credit prior to issuance of show cause notice and while accepting said reversal, no challenge is made by the department to this act of respondent. Admittedly, on nonavailment of the credit, manufacturer is entitled to the benefits emanating from notification which is of payment of reduced duty of 8 interest instead of payment of 16 duty. We therefore, are broadly in agreement with the conclusion in the decision of the CESTAT where it has held that issue is broadly covered by the decision of this Court in case of Ashima Dyecot Ltd.(supra). 12.In the said premise, that there being no perversity nor any unreasonableness in the order passed by CESTAT, the same requires to be sustained and with no question of law muchless substantial question of law having arisen in this case, appeal of the department deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
