|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 338 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 1341
Central Excise Valuation - on account of charging consideration of Optional Service Charges and Rust Proof Protection Charges over and above the MRP would part of MRP or not. - Held that:- when the goods have been cleared to the customers/ultimate buyers through a consolidated invoice which includes the price of the product plus OSC/RPP. - the goods have been sold over and above the MRP, therefore the OSC/RPP are includable in the assessable value. - decided against Assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1317
Demand - Classification - Circular No. 924/14/2010-CX., dated 19th May, 2010 - plant comprised of composite machinery consisting of par-boiling machinery, drier plant and rice mill - the noticee had also submitted an affidavit dated 9th November, 2010 stating that the goods manufactured and supplied by their firm were used exclusively by the rice mills - Held that:- The par-boiling and drying plants have an independent function from that of rice mill and merely because the rice mill plant also includes par-boiling and drying plant in the appellants establishment that itself cannot transform the machinery or the plant comprising of par-boiling and drying machinery into a composite machinery forming part of the rice mill.
Obviously the Commissioner in the order dated 9th August, 2010 on the basis that there was new material placed before the Commissioner to justify a different view from the one taken in relation to the earlier period has accepted the classification as proposed by the assessee which is contrary to the view taken in the earlier order for the earlier period - therefore, no infirmity in the classification for the product in question under Chapter Heading 8419 - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1306
Demand - differential duty - Whether amount received in the form of Technical know how will be included in the assessable value - Rule 6 of the Valuation Rules - Held that:- Agreement allowed the noticee to continue to use technical know-how for manufacture of the preparations under similar contracts for third parties - in the absence of a computation mechanism, cost of technical know-how could not be included in the value of the impugned preparations for determining the duty liability - Decided in favor of the assessee.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1304
Application for stay - recovery calculated @10% of the price of exempted goods payable at the time of clearance - benefit of provision under Rule 6(6)(vii)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or Sl. No. 91 in the Table appended to Notification No. 6/2006-C.E.- Held that:- The benefit under both the provisions is to the supplier, who has succeeded in getting the contract of supply of goods by having participated in the International Competitive Bidding - Appellants are merely supplying the goods to another firm, who is successful in obtaining the project work by taking part in the International Competitive Bidding in relation thereto - appellants cannot claim benefit either under the project comprised under Rule 6(6)(vii)(a) of the said Rule or under notification in question - appellants have to satisfy the requirements of rules under the Cenvat Credit as specified under the impugned order, more particularly sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - no prima facie case having been made out for total waiver of the amount demanded under the impugned order - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1303
Demand for payment of Central Excise due - Search - made production and cleared unaccounted finished products - period of limitaion - Held that:- If the letter sent through R.P.A.D. was not served, the same should be affixed at the Factory premises or at the residence as contemplated under Section 37C(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act - Tribunal passed the order dated 28-2-2005 without giving opportunity to the petitioner as notice as not served on them - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand
-
2011 (3) TMI 1301
Demand - Clandestine removal - Classification - Held that:- Tribunal, on analyzing the materials, came to the conclusion that the author of the Slip was not examined and there were no materials, barring the statement of Liaison Officer and the Security Assistant, who had nothing to do with the production and clearance - no purpose in remanding the case back for fresh adjudication, as had been sought for by the Revenue - no Substantial question arises.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1300
Writ - whether it would like to avail the opportunity of being heard in person, with regard to the amount of rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the arrears of excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner - Held that:- Writ petition is premature in nature as the impugned notice had only requested the petitioner to confirm as to whether it would like to be heard in person, in respect of the rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner - the writ petition stands dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1293
MODVAT Credit of duty paid on the inputs which were in stock - Notification No. 6/03-C.E., dated 1-3-02, w.e.f. 1-3-03 benefi claimed - Held that:- The condition against said S.No. required that no credit of duty paid on the duty stand availed by the assessee. The appellants, in terms of fulfilment of such condition, reversed the credit of Rs. 2,58,746/- on their own. The dispute relates to the credit of duty involved in respect of the input lying in stock as on 1-3-03. Inasmuch as the said inputs were used by the appellant in the manufacture of their final product, which were cleared in terms of said S.No. 182 of the notification, they were required to Reverse the MODVAT Credit of duty paid on such inputs, to fulfil the condition of S.No. 182 of Notification. As such, we do not find any infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals), vide which he has upheld the Revenue’s stand of reversal of MODVAT Credit of Rs. 1,71,021/- - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1292
No separate show cause notice regarding clubbing of clearances - Misdeclaration - invoking the extended period of limitation - Held that:- When both the units are functioning separately, the question of issuing one show cause notice to both the units does not arise. As regards this issue no question of law could arise since it is admittedly a question of fact and both the appellate authorities had concurred with the said finding.
As regards plea of limitation too, the Tribunal had correctly come to a conclusion that having regard to the fact which establishes evasion of duty, extended period would apply to the appellant - no substantial question of law arise for consideration in this appeal.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1287
Application for stay - exemption notification No. 58/2003-C.E., dated 22-7-2003 - no proper service about the hearing of the matter - Held that:- As no affidavit filed by the inward clerk or the officer of the appellant-company stating that he had received the letter from the postal authorities on the particular date and at the particular time - Considering the provisions of law envisaged under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 it is to be presumed that the postal authorities had delivered the letter on 26-11-2010 to the addressee
The law in granting the benefit to the SEZ developers was introduced with effect from 31-12-2008 as it was published in the Official Gazette in December, 2008. In the circumstances, therefore, it cannot be accepted that the SEZ developers were also entitled for the benefit, which the SEZ units were entitled to, prior to 31-12-2008. The relevant period in the case the goods in hand from June, 2008 to October, 2008 it was obviously prior to 31-12-2008, being so the question of finding fault with the impugned order or accepting the contention of the appellants does not arise - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1279
Export rebate retained - Application for stay - Deemed credit denied - Held that:- Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2002 under which the credit was availed, the manufacturer of processed fabrics is entitled to avail deemed cenvat credit to the extent of 66.67% of the duty payable on finished goods - The department, however, accepted 33.33% of duty paid in cash.Therefore, benefit of deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (N.T.), cannot be denied.
Extended period invoked - Held that:- The grey fabrics were received by the appellant under the cover of challans and invoices and after processing, the clearance was done on payment of duty under the cover of Central Excise invoices and ARE-1s on making necessary entries. Necessary monthly returns also seem to have been filed. The show cause notice was issued on 4-5-2007, whereas the clearance of grey fabrics were made on 30-4-2002 and 2/3-5-2002, i.e. after five years. Therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation in this case is not justified - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1273
Refund - dept. seek to enforce the bond - Held that:- Since refund claim proceedings are pending with the Assistant Commissioner, in two rounds of litigations, the Tribunal had already set-aside the demand of excise duty against the petitioners, the refund claim should be processed expeditiously, without any further delay. As consedring the case of the petitioners that they are not aware of such bond; if any, given, the Department must point out the reason why they seek to enforce the bond- directions for Respondents to supply copy of the bonds, or such other documents; as may be available with them, with respect to such bonds, within four weeks from today upon receipt of which it would be open for the petitioners to file additional reply within four weeks thereafter.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1272
Revision - rebate of duty paid on export of inputs/capital goods by reversing the amount equal to the amount of Cenvat credit taken on the said inputs/capital goods denied - Held that:- Contention of the revenue is without any merit because, firstly there is nothing on record to suggest that the amount paid on clearance of inputs/capital goods for export as duty under Rule 3(4) & 3(5) of 2002 Rules cannot be considered as payment of duty for granting rebate under the Cenvat Credit Rules. If duty is paid by reversing the credit it does not loose the character of duty and therefore if rebate is otherwise allowable, the same cannot be denied on the ground that the duty is paid by reversing the credit.
Secondly, the Central Government by its Circular No. 283/1996, dated 31st December, 1996 has held that amount paid under Rule 57F(1)(ii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (which is analogous to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004) on export of inputs/capital goods by debiting RG 23A part II would be eligible for rebate. In these circumstances denial of rebate on the ground that the duty has been paid by reversing the credit cannot be sustained.
Argument of the Revenue that identity of the exported inputs/capital goods could not be corelated with the inputs/capital goods brought in to the factory is also without any merit because, in the present case the goods were exported under ARE 1 form and the same were duly certified by the Customs Authorities. In favour of assessee.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1269
Duty Demand - Petitioner produces chemical preparations for processing cinematography films - Held that:- The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned show cause notices have been issued contrary to the decision of the Tribunal dated 11-7-2008 as also the decision of this Court dated 24-6-2009/12-11-2009 is also totally incorrect. By order dated 11-7-2008 the Tribunal has set aside the order-in-original dated 24-4-2007 and not the order dated 31-5-2000. Show cause notices have been issued on the basis of the order in original dated 25-8-2009 and not on the basis of the order dated 31-5-2000 issued on 26-6-2000 - merely because the order dated 31-5-2000 is referred to in the impugned show cause notices, it cannot be inferred that the show cause notices are issued on the basis of the order dated 31-5-2000 - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 1230
Valuation of pre-recorded audio cassettes without inclusion of royalty paid and without filing the price declaration - Extended period invoked for the purpose of demand of duty - Held that:- It is settled law, that the Tribunal cannot pass an order on merits if first appellate authority has not passed an order on merits of the case. Hence, we are precluded from taking any view on the merits of the case - Since the issue involved in this case seems to be arguable one and in our considered view, the matter seems to be a highly debatable one - Appeal is allowed by way of direction to deposit 50% of the amount
-
2011 (3) TMI 1229
Demand of differential duty during the period April 2000 to March 2001 in respect of the captively consumed goods - asseesee drew attention to the annexure to the show-cause notice wherein duty liability worked out by the adjudicating authority seems to be erroneous as they demanded the actual value and not the duty - Held that:- There is some error in calculation of duty in the show-cause notice. Instead of going into the factual matrix of the case, as to how the duty needs to be calculated, thus this issue should be gone into detail by the adjudicating authority and arrive at the correct duty liability of the appellants - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand
-
2011 (3) TMI 1228
Waiver of pre-deposit - wrong availment of Cenvat Credit by the appellant - Held that:- As seen from the Board Circular No.345/2/2004-TRU dated 28/07/2004 that the trader can discharge the duty liability on the goods, which were received by him prior to 09/07/2004. It is not clear in this case whether such goods, duty was paid on the goods invoiced to appellant, on which credit was availed were in fact received by the trader prior to 09/07/2004. If the trader issues an invoice of 18/08/2004; it has to be presumed that the Excise registration certificate issued to him was valid. If that be so, the issue needs to be considered from this angle also. In the absence of any findings on these points remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh - allow assessee's appeal by way of remand.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1227
Refund - unjust enrichment - Held that:- If the appellant is able to produce evidence regarding the payment of duty which has been claimed as refund by them and allowed by the adjudicating authority, the refund would be eligible to them subject to passing of hurdle of unjust enrichment. Since such evidence is produced before us for the first time, the matter should be reconsidered by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) again - remit matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh from the angle of unjust enrichment - assessee's appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (3) TMI 1226
Calandestine removal - maintanability of appeal - Held that:- Since the amounts involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 50,000 the discretion given under Section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 invoked and decline to record any findings on merits of the case - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 1225
Duty demand - case of the Revenue that the appellant is the manufacturer of the medicaments and has to discharge the duty liability on the final products based upon the appellant's sale price from the depot, while it is the assessee's contention that the loan licensee has discharged the duty based upon the cost of production - Held that:- The facts are undisputed in this case as medicaments were being manufactured under loan license basis from M/s LHL. It is also undisputed that M/s. LHL's discharge of duty liability was based upon the cost of production. On perusal of the Final Order in assessee's case[2007 (11) TMI 192 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] in the appellants own case the issue involved were identical, except that loan licences were different. Since the issue has already been decided by this Tribunal in favour of the appellants no reason to deviate from such views.
........
|
