|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 240 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 1121 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e for exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1117 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Assessing Officer that though the nature of work was known to the Revenue but the fact that ‘Fin Tubes’ and ‘Bend Tubes’, manufactured by the respondent/assessee, were being used for repair of the Air Coolers, was not known. At the same time, there was no dispute that reversal of credit taken on inputs Pipes was being done concurrently under MODVAT. In that background, the Tribunal held that the Revenue was 2 aware of the nature of work being carried out as well as inputs, as were being used, at the time when the repair works were being carried out and, accordingly, the demand under Section 11-A of the Act could only be raised within one year from the date of removal and not within the extended period, as is permissible under proviso to the said Section. The matter, having been decided on facts, to which there appears to be no dispute, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. We, accordingly dispose of the appeal without any interference.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1116 - SUPREME COURT
Job worker – liability of pay excise duty – receipt of material under 57F(2) / 57F(4) challans – It is the case of the Revenue that the job worker would be liable to pay central excise duty, specially, when he has received the raw material against the challan under rule 57F(2) of the Rules and not the final manufacturer of the end product.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1114 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... the Tribunal on 1st November, 2010 and makes the requisite deposit within four weeks from today, the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be decided on merits.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1112 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. This appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1111 - SC ORDER
Waiver of pre deposit - Demand of duty - If the duty is illegally paid on the parts, then such a duty paid illegally would have to be refunded.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1107 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e petition is disposed of with following directions (i) The petitioner shall deposit sum of ₹ 1 crore with the respondent authorities latest by 10-8-2011. (ii) Further sum of ₹ 1.50 crores will be deposited latest by 15-9-2011. (iii) On the premise that such deposits will be made as provided here-in-above, appeals of the petitioners shall be heard on merits by the Tribunal and disposed of in accordance with law. 9. It is clarified that the appeals shall be entertained only after verifying that the amounts as directed here-in-above have been deposited. It is further clarified that in case within the time permitted, such amounts are not deposited the petitioners’ appeals shall stand automatically dismissed without any further reference to this Court. 10. It is further clarified that in the meantime there is no stay against recovery of outstanding dues and condition of pre-deposit is for hearing the appeals of the petitioners on merits before CESTAT.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1103 - SC ORDER
Demand of Interest – provisional assessment - differential duty was paid prior to the date of final assessment.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1102 - SC ORDER
Cenvat Credit- The appellants received Carbon-di-oxide gas from M/s. Madras Fertilizers, through pipeline which is stored and compressed and subsequently filled in cylinders. Cylinders carry the buyers name “PILLAY” apart from the particulars of gross weight and net weight.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1099 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... o be settled for that month only. The argument advanced by applicant that gain and loss may be worked out for the entire period of 6 months has no legal backing and therefore cannot be accepted. Government notes that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly relied upon provisions of para 69 of Petroleum Products Manual dealing with loss of condonation in refineries which stipulates that loss/gain is to be worked out on a monthly basis and same is to be adjusted on monthly basis. The gain in any month cannot be allowed to be set off against loss in subsequent month. The guidelines are quite clear and there is no reasons for not following them. The contention of applicant are not supported by any laid down guideline or instruction and therefore cannot be accepted. 9. In view of above circumstances, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned orders-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. 10. Revision applications are rejected being devoid of merit. 11. So ordered.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1098 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... vided copies of export invoices before the appellate authority as a proof of duty payment. They had also submitted a correlation statement indicating Excise Invoice No. in respect of each ARE-1. Commissioner (Appeals) has examined all the documents and found that the ARE-1 does not contain the reference of duty paying documents/Invoices. The Export Invoice No. are given on the ARE-I but said export invoices do not have any cross-reference of Central Excise Invoices on which duty was paid. In the absence of such references, it is not possible to correlate the export goods with the said duty paying document. The correlation chart is of no help as there is no any cross-reference of duty paying documents in the ARE-1/Export Invoice. As such the duty paid character of exported goods is not proved. In view of above. Government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and uphold the same. 8. Revision Application is rejected being devoid of merit. 9. So, ordered.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1097 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... emsp;Government observes that department is considering the place of removal on factory gate ignoring the terms and conditions of sale agreement. Commissioner (Appeals) has held that in case of export, the place of removal is not the factory gate but the place where delivery of consignment is given to buyer. He has further directed the department to determine the place of removal and then decide the assessable value in terms of Section 4. The respondent is contended that in their case the sale has taken place of port of export where delivery of goods was given to buyer as the sale contract was on FOB basis. Government, keeping in view the discussion made in the foregoing para, finds the impugned Order-in-Appeal as legal and proper and therefore upholds the same. The original authority may decide the matter afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondent. 12. The revision applications are rejected being devoid of any merit. 13. So ordered.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1096 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... e Excise authorities/Customs authorities had no occasion to carry out the necessary verification. The switching from one scheme to other without following the prescribed procedure would lead to fraud and administrative inconvenience. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v DCCE - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.), that “Distinction to be made between procedural condition of technical nature and substantive condition - Non observation of the former is condonable while that of the latter not condonable as it is likely to facilitate commission of fraud and introduce administrative inconveniences”. 9. In view of above Government holds that the rebate claim under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not admissible in this case. Government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and therefore upholds the same. 10. The revision application is rejected being devoid of merit. 11. So, ordered.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1094 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... iples laid down in abovesaid case laws, Government is of the considered opinion that total denial of claimed rebate in respect of exported goods would not be appropriate in the interest of justice. Government, therefore is inclined to allow the claimed rebates if otherwise admissible as per law, subject to the condition that rebate claim is sanctioned as per input/output ratios approved now on the basis of relevant data/records, and same is also well within prescribed SION Norms notified in relevant EXIM Policy and the Central Excise invoices are duly verified by the jurisdictional Central Excise Range Superintendent. 14. In view of above discussions and findings, Government modified the impugned order-in-appeal to above extent and remand back the case matter to the original authority to consider and sanction the claimed rebates as per the observations given in the preceding para. 15. Revision application is thus disposed off in terms of above. 16. So ordered.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1093 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Rebate - duty paying documents - Scrutiny of documents submitted by respondent revealed that all the said documents pertain to M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II, Mathura. Thus the manufacturer (Ginni Knit Processing, Mathura) did not submit any evidence in support of payment of duty on invoices issued by them - The original authority held that rebate claimant was not a manufacturer and the manufacturer had not paid the duty thus, the rebate of duty cannot be claimed by M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II, Mathura, in terms of Section 11B of CEA, 1944.
Held that: - there is apparently a grave error of law on the part of the party which can not be brushed aside as a technical or procedural lapse - Government observes that this is case of clerical/computer printing mistake which Department has ignored. In fact, all the particulars i.e. Central Excise Registration No., address, Cenvat debit entry No. etc. on the said invoices are of M/s. Ginni Filament Ltd., Unit-II and only the name of unit is misprinted. Department has not considered these vital facts and acted in a mechanical manner especially when they have admitted that there is no unit in the name of M/s. Ginni Knit Processing. Government observes that there are catena of Court’s judgments that export benefits should not be denied on the ground of procedural lapses, when substantial condition of any scheme/benefit is complied. In the instant case, the substantial condition of payment of duty and export of goods is complied and hence rebate claim can not be rejected on such technical procedural lapses - revision rejected - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1092 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he value of painted bottles, but if the painting on plain glass bottles is done after their clearance from the factory, no duty would be chargeable. The ratio of this judgment is that the goods must be assessed to duty in the form in which the same are cleared from the factory. Applying the ratio of this judgment to the present case, tinting of the base point at the dealer’s premises on the instruction of the buyers to obtain the paint of the required shade by mixing various colourants to the base paint and consequent change in value of the paint is of no relevance to the assessment of duty on the base points at the time of their clearance from the factory, as it is not the Department’s case that the process of tinting amounts to manufacture. 19. In view of the above discussions, I fully agree with my learned brother’s conclusion that the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in court on 26-7-2011)
-
2011 (7) TMI 1090 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... CENVAT credit facilities. Such a conclusion, though prima facie, must be based on evidence which needs to be disclosed to the petitioners. This was not done. In our view prejudice was writ large on the face of the record. Before concluding, we may observe that in a given case, if the documents are too bulky, or otherwise too cumbersome to supply, instead of supplying copy to the petitioners, permitting inspection thereof, may also be sufficient compliance of the requirement of natural justice. In the present case, however, this was also not done. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed. Restrictions imposed are setaside. 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.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1089 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ds for the purposes of assessment is required to be increased or decreased, (f) The question of whether any goods are excisable goods or not, (g) Whether a process is a manufacturing process or not, so as to attract levy of excise duty, (h) Whether particular goods fall within which heading, sub-heading or tariff item or the description of goods as mentioned in column No. 3 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 43. From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating to the determination of any question having relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment lies to the Supreme Court under Section 35L(b) of the Act and not to the High Court under Section 35G.” 4. In view of the above said principle laid down by this court and following the reasons assigned therein, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable u/s 35G and the appellant to work out his remedy u/s 35L(b).
-
2011 (7) TMI 1088 - SC ORDER
Duty demand - classification of the items namely cheetos wheels and lehar kurkure - items classifiable under Heading 2108 of the CETA as namkeen and claimed exemption under Notification 5/99 from payment of duty. But the Revenue did not accept that classification and issued show cause notice to the appellants alleging that these items were classifiable under sub-heading 1904.10 of the CETA attracting duty @ 16% ad valorem.
-
2011 (7) TMI 1085 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... should have been heard by the adjudicating authority before coming to a conclusion. In our considered opinion there is violation of natural justice while passing the impugned order. In view of the foregoing, in our considered opinion, the appellant should be put to some conditions, so that he appears before adjudicating authority to cooperate in the adjudication proceedings. Hence we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from today and report compliance on 26-9-2011 to the adjudicating authority. The Appellants are also directed to file reply to the show cause notice within 4 (four) weeks from today i.e. on 29-8-2011. The adjudicating authority will take up the matter for de novo consideration on compliance of pre-deposit being reported to him by the assessee. In view of the above, Stay Petition and Appeal are disposed of by way of remand. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
........
|
