|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 338 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1550 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... other hand Mr. Uday Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the questions as formulated by the Court at the time of admission do not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal inasmuch as Tribunal has based its conclusion on findings of fact recorded by it. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that no reason exists for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules. Thus, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on the respondent assessee under Rule 209A of the Rules on the basis of findings of fact recorded by it. In the circumstances, the learned advocate for the respondent is justified in contending that the questions as formulated at the time of admission of the appeal do not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, in the absence of any question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1532 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r hand Mr. Uday Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the questions as formulated by the Court at the time of admission do not arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal inasmuch as the Tribunal has based its conclusion on findings of fact recorded by it. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that no reason exists for imposition of penalty under Rule 209A of the Rules. Thus, the Tribunal has deleted the penalty levied on the respondent-assessee under Rule 209A of the Rules on the basis of findings of fact recorded by it. In the circumstances, the learned advocate for the respondent is justified in contending that the questions as formulated at the time of admission of the appeal do not arise out of the impugned order of the Tribunal. 7. In the circumstances, in the absence of any question of law, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1531 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t to evade payment of duty, has to be necessarily established by the Revenue. In the absence of any such finding, the proper course for this court would be to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to render a finding on this aspect, after giving an opportunity to the party concerned. 4. It is no doubt true that in the Order-in-Original dated 22-2-2000, the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, in paragraph 8, considered the circumstances warranting the levy of penalty. But we do not think, that, by itself, would justify that there is a finding in the order of the Tribunal against which the present appeal arises. When the same had not been considered in the manner known to law, we have no hesitation in setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 5. In the result, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to render a finding with reference to the levy of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1530 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... EPB by the Licensing Authority at the rates notified by the Government of India; and (iii) the DEPB is produced before the proper officer of Customs for debit of the duties leviable on the goods but for exemption contained therein. The only disability is when there is no sufficient credit in the DEPB for debiting the duty leviable on the goods. 5. A reading of the Notification No. 45/2002 would show that the intention of the Government is to exempt the whole of the duty, additional duty and special additional duty. It is, therefore, not possible to read any further restriction as to levy of education cess in respect of duty free imports under DEPB scheme. Further there is no dispute that the ruling of South Zone Bench of CESTAT in Ruchi Health Foods Ltd. and that of the Mumbai Bench in Reliance Industries Ltd. have become final and the Revenue has not challenged the same. Therefore, this appeal is misconceived. 6. The appeal, for the above is reasons, is dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1529 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are quashed and the matter remitted to it for disposal in the light of present judgments. Appeals except Civil Appeal Nos. 3388 of 2006, 3397 of 2003, 3398-99 of 2003, 4096 of 2004, 4316 of 2007, 4317 of 20£7, 5277 of 2006, 675 of 2007, 1420 of 2007 and appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 21751 of 2007 are allowed and the excepted appeals shall now be placed before the Division Bench for disposal.” 9. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been affirmed by the Tribunal in reducing the penalty to ₹ 5,00,000/- which is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. At the same time, as noticed above, the question as to whether proviso to Section 11AC of the Act is applicable to the instant case or not has not been determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). In these circumstances, we remit the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide this aspect of the matter after hearing both the parties. 10. This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal is right in allowing the refund to the party when the party had already passed on the incidence of such duty amount (refund amount) and when there is a proviso in sub-section (2)(e) of Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 that the refund shall be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund if the duty of excise paid by the manufacturer had passed on the incidence of such duty to any other person?
Whether the Tribunal is correct in connecting the sundry receivables (losses) shown in the balance sheet to the passing of duty element?
Held that:- No justification in the contention of the appellant herein that on account of unjust enrichment at the hands of the State, refund could not be granted. Thus following the decision of the Apex Court reported in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] that the concept of unjust enrichment is not applicable as far as State Undertakings are concerned and to the State, apart from the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee had not passed on the liability to its consumers, we reject the prayer of the appellant herein and confirm the order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1498 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver o pre deposit - Cancellation of registration certification - Manufacturing activity or not - Appeal pending for disposal before this Tribunal to determine Whether activity by the applicants amount to manufacture or not - Held that:- As the issue “whether the activity undertaken by the applicants amounts to manufacture or not” is pending before this Tribunal, prima facie, we find that the applicant should not be asked to make any pre-deposit of the demands confirmed. Therefore, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty and stay demand thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1494 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... e covered by some other specific rules, it is not open for the assessee to take shelter of the board circular or the decision of the Court to contend that the valuation has to be in terms of such circular or decision of the board/Court, ignoring the statutory provisions applicable to the facts of the case. The statutory provision would override earlier board decision or the Court decision. Law in that regard is well settled. Therefore, we do not find any prima facie case having been made out for total waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned order. 6. emsp Needless to say that all the above observations are prima facie observations for the purpose of deciding the stay application in the matter. 7. emsp The appellants shall therefore, are directed to deposit Rs. 45 lakh within a period of eight (8) weeks while waiving the balance amount of demand of duty, interest and penalty demanded under the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal. For compliance on 1-7-2011.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1492 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... w that there was no suppression. There were enough material with the department, which have been discussed by the adjudicating authority in para 15.4 of the order to make a case against the appellant. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4. We do appreciate that the lock and key was under the control of the appellant. So far as the storage tanks of the impugned goods in concerned, perusal of para 15.4 of the impugned order does not make the appellant to be subject to the charges. Central Excise Act, 1944 is a self-contained code and adjudication is done following principle of evidence. Reading of para 15.2 nowhere shows that possession of lock and key alone shall bring the appellant to charges in absence of any cogent evidence. It appeals that the order has proceeded on surmises and suspicion. We do not express any opinion at this stage and leave the matter for arguments for both sides and direct that during pendency of appeal there shall be waiver of pre-deposit.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund of excess excise duty paid - bar of limitation - unjust enrichment - assessee offered discounts to their customers - refund claim made on 29-11-2001 was in-time. Because the Department pointed out certain defects and called for certain documents, instead of complying with the said request the assessee withdrew the claim on 20-7-2002 with an intention to file a fresh claim with all the necessary documents. - Held that:- when a fresh claim is made on 7-3-2002 the limitation is to be computed from that day. If limitation is to be computed from that day the claim for refund from 1-1-2002 up-to 6-3-2002 was clearly barred by time. However, the claim for refund from 7-3-2002 up-to 31-3-2002 was well within the time. Therefore though the authorities justified in holding that claim is barred by time to the extent of rejecting the claim from 7-3-2001 to 31-3-2001, the said order is incorrect. To that extent, the order passed by the authorities requires to be modified.
Refund - assessee levied and collected excise duty on a higher rate. Depending on the performance of customers/dealers he has passed on the benefit of deduction in the price of the goods. Corresponding excise duty payable is also reduced. He has raised the credit notes and passed on the said benefit to the customer – Held that:- burden of higher excise duty which he has paid for is not passed on to the customers, assessee entitled to refund of excess demand
-
2011 (3) TMI 1435 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Cenvat credit - credit disallowed on the capital goods on the ground that the capital goods in question were exclusively used for manufacture of non-dutiable intermediate product and have no relation with the manufacture of the final product – Held that:- order does not disclose that the department was totally unaware of the fact that the appellants were availing the credit in relation to the duty paid on the capital goods even though same were not utilized for the manufacture of the final product and that the same were utilised in relation to the exempted intermediate product, demand prior to 17-2-2008 is prima facie time barred, appellants to deposit the amount in relation to the credit sought to be availed on or after 17-2-2008 till October 2008.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1434 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Limitation - revenue contended that, as a case of suppression of true facts while filing the returns and claiming exemption is made out, the period applicable is five years and not one year as wrongly held by the Tribunal - demand is issued on the ground that the exemption is wrongly claimed. The assessee contends that exemption is applicable to the transaction in question, whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under the notification is a matter which falls within the phrase ‘determination of rate of duty payable’, which, only the Apex Court is competent to decide in an appeal filed under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded, appeal is rejected
-
2011 (3) TMI 1423 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Whether Tribunal right in law in holding that the assessee was not required to have paid the duty as they were exempted from paying the duty as the classification of the product was held in favour of the assessee – Held that:- benefit was denied only on the ground of non-compliance with the Rules and coupled with the fact that the delivery notes is not the satisfied document, Circular No. 441/7/99-CX., dated 23-2-1999 issued by the Board coupled with the fact that the very liability is exempted by virtue of the notification, the said substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue, appeals dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand of duty and a penalty of equivalent amount - demand on the ground that the appellants have cleared their finished goods by availing notification No.10/97-CE dated 01/03/97. As they were not eligible for the exemption, it was found by the adjudicating authority that the goods supplied by the appellants to BARC, ISRO, etc. were used by BARC and ISRO after doing some cutting, bending, etc. It was also observed that the benefit of exemption notification is available only when the assessee satisfied all the conditions of the notification. As in this case the description of use has not been stated in the certificate issued by the competent authority of BARC/ISRO, therefore, the benefit of exemption notification was denied - Held that:- adjudicating authority directed to look into the certificates issued by BARC/ISRO, etc. with regard to the end use of the impugned goods supplied by the appellants to them and to consider the contention of the appellants with regard to the annexure 'C' and 'D' of the show-cause notice, after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case in accordance with the law, order is set aside, the appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (3) TMI 1405 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Import of goods – shortage of goods imported – demand of differential duty amount on the differential quantity of 10.187 MTs of edible oil - Relying on the circular of Central Board of Excise and Customs (C.B.E. & C.) being No. 96 of 2002, dated 27-12-2002, Commissioner of Appeals set aside adjudication order dated 27-12-2007 - As per the circular, in case of bulk liquid cargo imports, shore tank receipt quantity should be taken as the basis for levy of customs duty, circular issued by the C.B.E. & C. shall come into effect from the date it was issued and not from the date when it is notified by way of public notice, whole objective of such circulars is to adopt a uniform practice and to inform the trade as to how a particular product will be treated for the purposes of excise duty. It does not lie in the mouth of the Revenue to repudiate a circular issued by the Board on the basis that it is inconsistent with a statutory provision, appeal dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Job work - valuation - waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts confirmed by the adjudicating authority as differential duty. - held that:- By elimination of Rule 2 to 10 as they may not apply in a situation like in this case provisions of Rule 11 will apply and Revenue has to take the recourse to provisions of Rule 11 which talks about using reasonable means consistent with the principles and general provisions of these rules read with sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Keeping this in mind, we find that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints (1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) will squarely apply i.e. to ascertain the assessable value on the cost of materials plus processing charges. In our view, the appellants have been correctly valuating their products by adopting this method.
Valuation under rule 8 - cost plust 10% - held that:- It can be seen that in Ultrapack (2009 -TMI - 76599 - CESTAT, BANGALORE), Rule 8 was invoked because it was undisputed that repacking was done on behalf of Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. which would clearly attract the provisions of Rule 8. The situation in the current appeal before us is totally different which has been set out by us in the earlier paragraphs. In view of this, the decision of this bench in the case of Ultrapack will not be applicable.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1370 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit wrongly claimed - department has issued notice to the original firms namely Ms. Amar Enterprise and M/s. Flarikrishna Enterprise for recovery of duty and penalty. This would thus show that department is pursuing the original entities for recovery of cenvat credit wrongly claimed whereas on other hand it is denying rebate claim of the manufacturer exporters - counsel contended that without cancellation of cenvat credit granted to M/s. Unique Exports, rebate claimed by respondent M/s. Roman Overseas cannot be declined - Held that:- issue cannot be raised by respondent M/s. Roman Overseas in facts of the present case. As already noted, before the competent authority the stand of respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was clear that fraud was not disputed, but that respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was not part of such fraud and that all reasonable care was taken to ensure that goods were duty paid, respondent M/s. Roman Overseas was either part of the fraud in non-payment of excise duty or had knowledge about the same or even had failed to take care as envisaged under sub-rule(2) of Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, situation would have been different, Petitions therefore, fail. Same are dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1363 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - demand of duty - Tribunal set aside the Duties on the ground that, the assessee has not availed Cenvat credit in respect of the work in progress - assessee had shown the work in progress in the balance sheets which is duly certified by the Chartered Accountant - assessee opted for exemption under the SSI scheme - correspondingly on Cenvat credit was availed as factually there was no work in progress - Tribunal considering all the material on record has recorded a categorical finding of fact that there is no evidence that there was no work in progress - no allegation that the assessee had utilized the so called credit attributable to the work in progress and the question of reversing the same would not arise, order set aside, questions of the law framed are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
2011 (3) TMI 1362 - SUPREME COURT
Refund claim - conclusions have been recorded by the Tribunal after analyzing the fact that a certificate dated 10-5-2001 issued by the Chartered Accountant was produced before the Adjudicating Authority but subsequently another certificate was produced which is dated 17-6-2002 issued by another Chartered Accountant - High Court held that matter has to be remitted back for fresh and de novo consideratio - parties are also required to be given opportunity to adduce such other materials which may be produced by either of the parties in respect of the disputes between them so as to enable the Tribunal to come to an appropriate finding on all the issues and in respect of all the models, matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh and de novo adjudication of the entire disputes between the parties relating to all the models manufactured by the Appellant
-
2011 (3) TMI 1343 - CESTAT, DELHI
Clandestine Removal - Shortages of goods - Proof - Clandestine removal has been accepted by the party inasmuch as they have not contested the duty demanded. - It is fairly evident that this respondent is not an assessee who accounts all goods manufactured. Therefore there is a burden on them to prove that the excess raw material was due to bonafide mistake - The respondent has failed to discharge this burden - Decided against the assessee. Penalty - that the penalty to be imposed under Rule 25 need not be equal to the duty evaded. Therefore, I do not want to interfere with the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) in reducing the penalty from 30,000/- to Rs.10,000/- Redemption fine - Redemption fine cannot be correlated to the duty payable on the inputs because there is no case that such duty has not been paid -redemption fine, normally the guideline is the profit that can accrue to the party due to the proposed clandestine activity should be taken as basis. This would mean that the duty that can be evaded by manufacturing goods clandestinely and removing without payment of duty has to be the reasonable basis - This duty will be more than the duty paid on inputs - find that the redemption fine imposed in the order-in-original is maintainable.
........
|
