|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 338 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1596
Reversal of MODVAT credit - input, namely, furnace oil, which was utilized in manufacturing of exempted goods - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Commnr. of Central Excise Versus M/s. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. [2009 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that Sub-rule (1) covers all inputs, including fuel, whereas sub-rule (2) refers to non-fuel-inputs. Sub-rule (2) covers a situation where common cenvatted inputs are used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final product and exempted final product but the fuel- input is excluded from that sub-rule. However, exclusion of fuel-input vis-a-vis non-fuel-input would still fall in sub-rule (1) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1594
Clandestine removal - evidences - Held that: - there was no evidence on record to establish clandestine removal of the goods by the assessee - demand set aside - appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1587
... ...
... ... ..... e CESTAT has observed that the show cause notice itself does not mention the thickness of the tin plates. In these circumstances we see no reason to entertain the appeal. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that on the basis of similar facts, a writ petition has been admitted between the parties in respect of an earlier period. Therefore, he urges that the present first appeal should also be admitted. We are not inclined to accept this submission because a substantial question of law has not been made out in the present first appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1586
Whether, the deemed export made by the noticee to other 100% EOU in the country in terms of para 9.20 of Exim Policy 1997-2002 were to be considered for the purpose of para 9.9(a), 9.9(b) and 9.20 of Exim Policy 1997-2002 after taking into consideration the definition of Export as described under Section 2(18) of Customs Act, 1962 as the term Export is neither defined in Exim Policy 1997-2002 nor in Central Excise Act, 1944 - If Deemed Export cannot be treated as Export in terms of Notification No. 2/95 C.E., dated 4-1-1995, then can M/s. Sabnam Synthetics be permitted to clear goods in DTA against the Deemed Export.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1583
Duty demand - Rejects and Waste of grey fabrics and twisted yarn cleared by the appellants from their E.O.U. to the domestic tariff area - no valid permission for D.T.A. sale - duty concession in terms of Notification No. 20/98-C.E., dated 18-7-1998 - exemption can be extended only in the event the finished goods were manufactured from indigenous raw materials.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1582
... ...
... ... ..... for the appellant and perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that entire question is based on apprehension of facts. Tribunal found as a matter of fact that there was no suppression of fact or misstatement so as to permit extended period of limitation. Tribunal observed that for period under consideration, there was a permission required for removal of goods for job work and therefore, it cannot be said that department was not aware of the fact of removal. It was also noticed that permission could have been issued only after considering the process to be undertaken by the job worker. Since the process of manufacturing raw material and finished product were indicated to the department, it cannot be said that the department was not aware of the facts. 3. This conclusion of the Tribunal is based on material on record and since we find that no perversity is pointed out, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. 4. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1581
... ...
... ... ..... hearing counsel for the appellant and perusal of the order of the tribunal, we find that entire question is based on apprehension of facts. Tribunal found as a matter of fact that there was no suppression of facts or misstatement so as to permit extended period of limitation. Tribunal observed that for period under consideration, there was a permission required for removal of goods or job work and therefore, it cannot be said that department was not aware of the fact of removal. It was also noticed that permission could have been issued only after considering the process to be undertaken by the job worker. Since the process of manufacturing raw material and finished product were indicated to the department, it cannot be said that the department was not aware of the facts. This conclusion of the tribunal is based on material on record and since we find that no perversity is pointed out, we do not find any substantial question of law arising in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1580
... ...
... ... ..... ion granting exemption to the assessee and also adjudicating the rate of duty payable. 2. The said question is to be agitated before the Apex Court in an appeal to be filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. The High Court in an appeal under Section 35G of the Act, cannot go into the said question. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the appellant to approach the Apex Court.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1579
... ...
... ... ..... determined? (ii) Whether the interest on differential duty ought to have been paid from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the goods were cleared?” 2. Today by a considered judgment in C.E.A. Nos. 8 and 9/07 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. J.K. Tyres, we have held that the interest is to be calculated in terms of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and not from the date of final order of assessment. In that view of the matter, for the reasons stated therein, this substantial question of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1578
... ...
... ... ..... spite non-compliance with certain requirements of circular dated 25-7-2002, assessee had substantively complied with requirements and only procedural conditions are not satisfied and that therefore, was entitled to claim exemption?”
-
2011 (3) TMI 1575
Goods sold to sister concern – Undervalued - Revenue neutralization – Grievance was that aspect of undervaluation not considered - Bar of limitation.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1573
... ...
... ... ..... ing an undertaking pursuant to previous order dated 24-6-2008, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the applicants. However, as it was offered at the outset by learned counsel, Mr. Thakkar, that the applicants would abide by such conditions as may be imposed for the purpose of hearing of their appeals on merits, we partly allow the application by making the following conditional order. 7. In case the applicants deposit by 1st April, 2011, total sum of ₹ 93,64,004/- minus the amounts already paid, and upon production of proof of deposit of that amount, the appeals of the applicants being Appeal Nos. E/643 & 644/2007 may be restored for expeditious hearing on merits. In case of failure on the part of the applicants to comply with the aforesaid conditions, original orders dated 9-8-2007, 15-10-2007, 20-11-2007 and 27-3-2008 mentioned in the order dated 24-6-2008 as aforesaid shall stand. The application stands disposed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1572
... ...
... ... ..... l as wrong utilisation of credit and expression of wrong utilisation would include retention of the credit contrary to the provision of law. Being so, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have interfered with the order relating to the imposition of penalty without analysing the above aspect. The approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) in that regard was not correct and therefore, the order in that regard cannot be sustained and the order of the adjudicating authority will have to be restored. 7. In the result, therefore, the appeal partly succeeds. The impugned order as far as it relates to reduction of quantification of the amount of liability from ₹ 3,56,082/- to ₹ 3,22,731/- does not warrant any interference and is accordingly confirmed. The impugned order setting aside interest liability and the penalty is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority in that regard is restored. 8. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of in the above terms.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1571
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court of Gujarat. However if the appeal is rejected on the ground of doctrine of merger, it would only create additional litigation since the matter will be reaching the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat to decide the issue of doctrine of merger. On the other hand I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the learned DR. When there are precedent decisions of the Tribunal, judicial discipline requires that the Tribunal follows those decisions. Alternative available is only to refer to the Larger Bench. Since I find myself in agreement with those decisions and I also consider that interest of justice requires that this application is to be allowed, the application filed by the Revenue is allowed and the order of this Tribunal is recalled. Registry is directed to list both the appeals together for a hearing. This order is issued under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules to meet the ends of justice. (Pronounced in Court on 14-3-2011)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1569
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee has reduced the price to that extent. In other words, it is a consideration for determination of the price though given by the buyer indirectly in the form of free supply of packing materials. Further, Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules clearly provides that the value of materials consumed, including packing materials in the production of goods has to form part of the assessable value of the goods. 7. In view of this legal position, we are of the prima facie view that the assessee has not made out a case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed in the order of the appellate authority. Accordingly, we direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50 of the duty confirmed within four weeks of the receipt of this order and report compliance on 13th May, 2011. On such compliance, pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty along with interest and penalty will be waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1568
... ...
... ... ..... , it is seen that the used capital goods were admittedly cleared by the appellant under the cover of an invoice raised by them. The appellant also paid sales tax on the transaction value at applicable rate. As such it can be safely concluded that such clearances were not clandestine. Duty was not paid on the same under a bona fide impression that the capital goods being old and used, are not required to be cleared on payment of any duty. As soon as the audit objected to the same, appellant paid the duty in 2008 itself. As such, I agree with the learned advocate that this may be a case of bona fide interpretation of the provisions of law and not a case of mala fide evasion of duty, necessitating any imposition of penalty upon them. Accordingly penalty imposed upon the appellant is set aside. 10. In a nutshell appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. Early hearing application as also stay petition stand disposed off. (Pronounced in court on 15-3-2011)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1566
... ...
... ... ..... y they developed specific customized software for specific customers and cleared the same in CDs and installed the same in the computers belonging to the customers; duty was paid 8 as applicable to software. There is no dispute that the software is cleared separately and installed in the computers of their customers by the applicants. Therefore, prima facie, the question of classification under the heading under which the equipments fall does not arise and therefore, prima facie, the payment of duty of 8 itself is in order. At this stage, we do not go into the question as to whether duty was not required to be paid in terms of S. No. 27 of the Table to Notification No. 6/06-C.E., dated 1-3-2006, as duty 8 already stands paid by the applicant. 4. We, therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit of demand of differential duty together with interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1564
... ...
... ... ..... rker M/s. Roto Spin India, Pune cleared the twisted yarn at ‘Nil’ rate of duty as per Sl. No. 123 read with condition No. 28 of the Table to Notification No. 6/2002 and therefore they are deemed to have utilized input credit on the Partially Oriented Yarn. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that there is no dispute that the twisted yarn made out of duty paid POY was cleared by the job worker at ‘Nil’ rate of duty and, therefore, question of his having utilized actual credit (input credit) on POY does not arise. In these circumstances, there is no reason why the benefit of input credit on POY should not be admissible to the assessees and therefore we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) extending such credit and setting aside penalty, and reject the appeal. The cross-objection filed by the assessees is only in the nature of comments upon/reply to the Revenue’s appeal and hence is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (3) TMI 1556
... ...
... ... ..... s, inputs / capital goods on the date of removal must be in the same form as they were on the date on which they were brought into the factory. Normal wear and tear of the inputs / capital goods does not make them different from the original inputs / capital goods. Moreover, it is not the case of the revenue that on account of the user, the character of the capital goods has changed. Therefore, where duty paid inputs / capital goods brought into the factory are subsequently cleared for export, then Rule 3(5) of 2004 Rules would apply. Hence, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India was justified in holding that user of the capital goods before export does not in any way affect the duty liability on export of such capital goods and consequently does not affect the right of the assessee to claim rebate of duty paid on export of such capital goods. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, we see no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1551
Central Excise Notification No. 16/94-(N.T.), dated 30th March, 1994 challenged to the extent it provides that on the basis of the documents stipulated therein, credit under Rule 57G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules) has to be taken on or before 30th June, 1994
Held that:- The impugned notification issued in exercise of powers under Rule 57G of the Rules insofar as the same prescribes a time-limit for taking of credit, being in excess of the powers conferred under the said rule is ultra vires the same and as such cannot be sustained to that extent.
Petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned Notification No. 16/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 30th March, 1994 to the extent it provides that the credit under Rule 57G of the Rules has to be taken on or before 30th June, 1994 being in excess of the powers conferred under Rule 57G of the Rules is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23rd November, 2001 of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner is also set aside. Consequently, the respondents are restrained from enforcing any demand pursuant to the order of CEGAT in Appeal Nos. E/1487, 1577, 1377/97-Mum., dated 23rd November, 2001.
........
|
