|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 240 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1373
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The Civil Appeal is dismissed on facts.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1333
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1332
... ...
... ... ..... issed in the light of the decision of this Court in SLP (Civil) ……/2011 (CC 7114/2011).
-
2011 (7) TMI 1302
Judicial Discipline - Held that:- We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution - SLP dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1284
... ...
... ... ..... o the original authority as the case is required to be re-considered in the light of the retrospective amendment made through Finance Act, 2010 allowing reversal of proportionate credit. Learned DR has no objection to such remand. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the matter in the light of the camendment made through Finance Act, 2010 after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1268
Classification of goods - ducts manufactured out of GI sheets - classified under CTH 73.08 or otherwise? - Held that: - the goods in question that ducts fall for classification under Chapter Heading 73.08 as part and parcel of the air-conditioning system as claimed by the assessees - reliance placed in assessee's own case Commissioner Versus E.T.A. Engg [2006 (4) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT] - the goods are excisable falling for classification under Chapter 73.08 and exempt from payment of duty.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1188
CENVAT credit - outdoor ‘catering services - whether outdoor catering service falls within the ambit of input service or not?
-
2011 (7) TMI 1176
... ...
... ... ..... only on account of accumulation of Cenvat credit on export of goods cleared under bond under certain conditions. In the instant case, no such situation exits and therefore it cannot be said that the payment of ₹ 75 lacs by the applicant by utilizing the Cenvat credit of another unit is revenue neutral. 15. The applicant is therefore directed to make payment of ₹ 75 lacs as settled by the Commission by cash or by utilization of the Cenvat credit amount if available in his own factory account immediately. The interest liability will also have to be recalculated accordingly by the Jurisdictional Commissioner and be informed to the applicant who should pay the same within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Sd/- (K.C. Singh) Member 16. In view of the dissenting opinion by learned Member, Shri K.C. Singh, the majority views prevail in terms of provisions of Section 32D of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (H.O. Tewari) Vice-Chairman
-
2011 (7) TMI 1173
... ...
... ... ..... re set-aside. This is without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law, after supplying necessary materials. If the respondents wish to proceed further from the stage of issuance of show cause notice, they would supply necessary documents to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” In the result, present petition is also allowed. The impugned Order dated 20th June, 2011 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs is quashed. Restrictions imposed on the petitioner are set-aside. It would be, however, open for the respondents to proceed further from the stage of supplying necessary documents to the petitioners, which may be done within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. After supplying such documents and permitting the petitioners to file further reply within reasonable time, it would be open for the respondents to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1163
... ...
... ... ..... 'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the lower authority where waiver is granted on financial hardship. 7. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Benara Valves Ltd. (supra) while interpreting the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act held that "the Tribunal while dealing with the application has to consider materials to be placed by the assessee relating to undue hardship and also to stipulate condition as required to safeguard the interest of revenue". In view of the above decision and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, financial hardship and interest of Revenue, the applicant is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 2 crores (Rupees two crores only) within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 26/09/2011. Subject to such report of compliance, pre-deposit of balance amount of duty is waived and recovery therefore stayed till the disposal of the appeals. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1156
... ...
... ... ..... hown. Revenue’s case was that no rewarehousing certificates for these ARE-3s were produced but the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding that the re-conciliation of the ARE-3s has been carried out and there is no demand of duty as the assessee was able to show rewarehousing of goods, and he dropped the demand of duty but imposed penalty. In our considered view at this juncture the imposition of penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 based upon quantification of number of ARE-3s is uncalled for, as under the said rule there is a provision of imposition of general penalty of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). Hence, we are of the view that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2011 (7) TMI 1155
... ...
... ... ..... ave Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... 0/S-102/KOL/2011 dated 25.04.2011 we find that there is no report for compliance of the pre-deposit ordered nor there is any representative present to explain the factual position as regards compliance of the stay order. The Appeal is dismissed for non-compliance. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
-
2011 (7) TMI 1145
... ...
... ... ..... tained central excise registration and suppressed the actual value with the intention to evade central excise duty. This has resulted in issuance of show cause notice and the adjudicatory order was passed by the Jt. Commissioner, Central Excise on 30.11.1999 imposing the duty of ₹ 6,04,624/- and penalty of ₹ 3 lacs. The assessee aggrieved by this order filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld this portion of the order vide order dated 28.02.2002. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CESTAT which passed an order on 03.12.2003 sustaining the duty but held that the penalty imposed was on the higher side and reduced the same to ₹ 60,000/-. It is in these circumstances that the revenue sought a reference which resulted in the question of law framed aforesaid. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme court, the question has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1141
Refund of cenvat credit - interest on delayed refund - under provisions of clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Act.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1139
... ...
... ... ..... covered in these petitions, upon furnishing bank guarantee of 25 of the duty claimed and furnishing personal bond for rest of the amount. It is clarified that this is on the condition that petitioners shall file appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) within two weeks from today. It is further directed that appeals be disposed of expeditiously and in any case not later than three months from the date of receipt of such appeals. It is clarified that if such appeals are not preferred within two weeks, then this protection shall cease to operate automatically. 8. It is further clarified that by our previous order we had permitted part of the containers to be released unconditionally. Such containers already released shall also be covered under this formula. We have expressed no opinion on rival contentions. All issues will be decided by Commissioner of Appeals unmindful of observations which may have been made in this order. 9. With above directions, petitions are disposed of.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... ced that the witnesses consistently stated that the appellant had removed fabrics valued at ₹ 22/- per square meter without the payment of duty during the period of dispute. The quantity of fabrics which was removed, was stated by the Proprietor and his clerk in their respective statements. The retraction was only in a reply to the notice to show cause. Moreover, the clerk, who was dealing with excise matters, provided quantitative details of the clandestine removal of fabrics and that statement was not controverted. On this finding of fact, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the demand of duty and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Tribunal also noted that in the reply to the notice to show cause, the appellant conceded that the fabrics seized by the Officers, who visited the factory, were in quantities which were in excess over what was accounted in the statutory records. 2. Hence, no substantial question of law would arise. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1124
Denial of SSI Exemption - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the benefit of SSI exemption is admissible in terms of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 to proprietary concern manufacturing specific excisable goods using the brand name owned by another partnership firm in which proprietor of the assessee is one of the partner.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1123
Excisability of Fabricated items - Manufacture - classification under Heading 73.08 of the CET - appellants are fabricating columns, purlines etc. by cutting, drilling, punching and welding on duty paid channels and angles and thereafter these are being assembled to post at work site and are fixed in the exact position.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... not so excessive that they may be treated to be unjust or arbitrary. These Rules are reasonable in their operation and do not cause undue hardship to the distiller. The overtime fees is to be paid only if the distiller decides to run the distillery overtime. In the present case, the Rules have stood for the last 45 years. They have been amended by increasing the prescribed overtime fees for four times which is neither excessive nor can be treated to be excessive on the distiller makes huge profits in making production overtime. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find that any of the submissions namely the rules being ultra-vires to the Act and not co-relative to the services rendered by the department,or oppressive or harsh are established. We may also observe that prescription of overtime fees is the condition of the license and that by the nature of its imposition it is a fee connected with parting in the privilege to run the distillery. The writ petitions are dismissed.
........
|
