|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 240 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 215 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Penalty and interest - Whether assessee is not responsible for any penalty and interest since they have deposited the duty before the issue of show cause notice - decision of the Supreme Court in Sony India Ltd.,V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 2004 (167) E.L.T. 385 in which it was held that mere deposit of the amount prior to the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act will not necessarily negate the situation mentioned in the said Section - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 211 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
100% EOU - The appellant s contention that 50% of actual export as also deemed export, have to be taken into consideration for arriving at their eligibility of clearance in DTA - the reference to the status of deemed exports and receipt of payments in foreign exchange etc. was the basis for arriving at the finding that deemed exports have to be taken into consideration, while adjudging the 50% eligibility of DTA clearances - It is not necessary for the adjudicating authority to satisfy the factual aspects of the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal, in each and every case - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (7) TMI 206 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Application for stay - Demand - in identical issues the appeals of the other applicant/appellants similarly situate have been remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for de-novo decision in the light of the observations made in the case of Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors vide order No. A/55-185/WZB/AHD/2011 dated 24.01.2011[2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD ] - Stay petitions also appeals stands disposed of
-
2011 (7) TMI 201 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and penalty - Manufacturer of motor vehicle chassis - Hence, chassis cannot be treated as an input partially processed in terms of Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - But, held that chassis is semi finished goods in the context of body built vehicle which is a final product - Further, find that the tariff itself prescribing higher rates of duty for chassis by prescribing additionally a specific component of BED for chassis unlike in the case of body built vehicle - Since the duty paid on the body built vehicle is clearly on the higher side than the duty payable on the chassis as per the proposal by the department, there is no evasion of duty involved - Find that the body built vehicle has been allowed to be removed without payment of duty by respondent 2 ( no demand also is raised on the respondent 2) and the same received by respondent 1 and cleared on payment of higher amount of duty - Thus, do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the Commissioner in dropping the demand against respondent 1 and in not imposing penalties on the respondents - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 200 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Assessable value of Transformers - Eligibility of deduction of equalized freight - Transformers as high volume and heavy products and definitely involve considerable freight in transporting to the various destination - find that freight has been agreed to between the appellant and buyers on the basis of contract - find that the appellants have not the made the submissions before the original authority regarding excess payment to transporters when compared to what has been collected by them - The Commissioner (Appeals) while holding that in three cases the amounts collected was more than the amount of freight and insurance has only taken freight paid to the transporters without considering the amount incurred towards insurance - Held that the factual basis on which the orders have been passed by the authorities below are not clear - It deem appropriate to accept the suggestion of the learned JCDR to remand the matter to the original authority.
-
2011 (7) TMI 193 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Waiver of pre-deposit - Limitation - Provision of section 37C - Appellants submitted that in this case, order in original was passed on 13.06.2007 and issued on 21.06.2007 - The appellant did not know about the order since he had not received the copy - He observed that the appellant s argument that appellant s wife is not authorised to sign and receive the order etc. are not valid grounds and therefore, he held that the appeal is barred by limitation - Hence, the department has stronger case in the sense that postal acknowledgement signed by a person is available - Unfortunately neither the appellant nor department can say who exactly signed and who took delivery of the same but for the purpose of Section 37C, it is not relevant - In the case of Rajesh Kumar Jain vs. UOI 1999 (113) ELT 57 (Cal ) , the Hon ble High Court of Kolkata came to the conclusion that service of notice is complete either by tendering or sending the same by registered post - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 188 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Consification - Demand - Penalty under Rule 173Q as well as Section 11 AC - Clandestine removal - shortage of grey fabrics - Find that at the time of officer s visit to the respondent s factory, the stock of PV Shirting in the RG-1 Register was shown as 84316 Sq.mtrs. and the entire production of PV Shirting had been shown on 17.08.98, which is impossible more so when the production slips pertaining to the production of PV Shirting on 17.08.1998 totalled only upto 4316 sq.mtrs. from which it is clear that this was the actual production of 17.08.98, which had originally been recorded in the RG-I Register and immediately after the officers visit, the same was hurriedly changed to 84316 - Shri Deepak Srivastava, Excise Clerk in his statement recorded under Section 14 of the Act has clearly stated that the figure 8 was added before the figure 4316 immediately after the officers visit to the respondent s factory and this was done on the instruction of Shri M.P.Agarwal, Managing Director of the respondent company who promised to send the production s slips to justify that much production on 17.08.98 - Therefore, hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) s findings that there was no excess stock in RG-I Register and there was no contravention of the Rule 53 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not correct - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 172 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - It was submitted by the appellants that the credit was denied to them on the ground that they failed to provide correct invoice and some of the invoices were found to be fake/ issued by non existent suppliers - there was no intention on their part to evade payment of service tax and the manufacturers, dealers from whom the grey fabrics were received, were registered under the provisions of the Act and therefore, there was no suppression of facts - it is found that no proper verification of the invoices or for existence of manufacturers/ dealers were conducted by the Revenue to substantiate the demand - Appeal is disposed of by way of remand
-
2011 (7) TMI 151 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand and interest - Seized - it has been established that the impugned goods have been cleared without payment of duty by the first appellant to the premises of the last two appellants - Find that the findings of the original authority are detailed, the same take into account all the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and there are adequate reasons given for confirmation of the duty demanded along with interest - As such, there is no case for reduction in the duty amount confirmed - However, the claim made by the assessee regarding part payment of the duty amount requires to be considered and the same requires to be adjusted against the demand subject to verification. penalties - As regards the penalties imposed, find that the statutory penalty equal to duty has been imposed on the appellant firm M/s Natraj Plast Industries Ltd - Considering the duty amount involved, separate penalty imposed on the appellant.
-
2011 (7) TMI 127 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Penalty u/s 76 and 77 - Provision of section 80 - Maintenance and repair services - Service tax with interest was paid by the respondents even before issue of show cause notice but unfortunately while paying the amount, the interest of Rs. 118/- was short paid. Because of this reason, the provisions of Section 73 (3) cannot be applied since entire amount with interest has not been paid and if the entire amount has not been paid, proceedings can be initiated according to the law - Once delay in payment is established and show cause notice has been issued, penalty under Section 76 as per the amount prescribed in the Section, have to be imposed unless respondent is able to show reasonable cause for non payment of service tax or delay in payment and if Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 is not invokable, penalty becomes imposable - Hence, at no stage during the course of proceedings before the adjudicating authority or appellate authority or before the Tribunal when the matter was heard in 2009, the respondents have pleaded the invocation of provisions of Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994 - Thus, it would not be appropriate to invoke the provisions of Section 80 at this stage - Appeal filed by the Revenue is thus allowed.
-
2011 (7) TMI 126 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Condonation of delay - delay in filing declaration - application for taking modvat credit was filed within two months from the date of registration and therefore, period was within the condonable limit - Moreover, in terms of amended rules, once it is established that the capital goods were duty paid and were to be used for the purpose of for which they were brought into factory, procedural lapses should not be come in the way of availment of modvat credit - Since the issue is more than 12 years old, it would not be appropriate to send the matter back for verification of documents - fact that in the declaration filed the details about the invoices, nature of capital goods and duty have been indicated and further, both the lower authorities have not observed that goods have not been received or non duty paid or appellants are not eligible on merits. Under these circumstances, the appellants are eligible for modvat credit and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 120 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand of duty - cenvat credit under Rule 3(1)- job worker - Revenue submission that under rule 3(1), respondents was not eligible for availing credit, it has to noted that once the respondent is treated as manufacturer, he is eligible to take the credit - Respondents submitted that the ground taken in the show cause notice was that the respondents is only job worker and not manufacturer - According to the Board Circular as well as settled law the job worker is the manufacturer - - Held that:- since all the goods manufactured have been exported, question of payment of duty or availing exemption, does not arise - It is settled law that export goods cannot be treated as exempted goods - Thus, credit is available to the respondents - Further, learned Commissioner has correctly considered and interpreted the provisions of notification No. 52/2000-CE dated 19.10.2000. - Therefore, decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 113 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Cenvat credit - Inputs which have not been proved to be received in the manufacturing unit - Contravention to the erstwhile Rule 57G(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have come to a clear finding of fact that the assessee has proved beyond reasonable doubt that they have received the inputs in question and the same were used by them in the manufacture of final product - This is a pure finding of fact which cannot be assailed in an appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 90 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Classification - Notification No.4/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 - Rule 57CC (9) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - The finished goods and raw material found in excess of the quantity shown in the stock registers were seized by the revenue - By virtue of the said show cause notice, the respondent/assessee was called upon to respond as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.7,69,90,751/- ought not to be imposed on the alleged ground of diverting raw material / inputs on which modvat has been availed for the purposes of manufacturing goods cleared at nil rate of duty under the aforementioned exemption notification - assessee cannot seek modvat credit on inputs and have that credit adjusted against duty payable against finished goods and, at the same time, utilize those very inputs, on which modvat credit had been claimed for manufacture of finished goods by having them cleared under an exemption notification providing for a nil rate of duty - The authorities below have merely examined the issue from the point of view of the interpretation which according to them, had to be laid on Rule 57 CC (9) - A bare perusal of the show cause notice would show that it is replete with allegations that respondent/assessee diverted modvatable inputs in manufacture of exempted finished goods - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (7) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT
Rectification of mistakes - Classification - Notification No. 179/77-CE dated 18th June, 1977 - whether or not the process of lifting of water with the use of power, to the extent and for the purpose mentioned above, constitutes a process in or in relation to manufacture of goods, viz. "Rosin" and "Turpentine Oil", with the aid of power - It is trite that in determining what constitutes manufacture no hard and fast rules of universal application can be devised and each case has to be decided on its own facts having regard to the context in which the term is used in the provision under consideration, but some broad parameters laid down in the earlier decisions dealing with the question could be applied to determine the question whether a particular process carried on in relation to the final product amounts to manufacture of that product - It is well settled proposition of law that Circulars and instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective Statutes but when this Court or the High Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Courts or the Tribunal, as the case may be, to direct that the Board's Circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or a High Court. Assessee is not eligible to claim exemption since the water being an important input for the manufacturing process of "Rosin" and "Turpentine Oil", its further lifting upto the height of 30 ft. with the aid of an electric motor for the purpose of condensing the vapours of Turpentine Oil, it cannot be said that the said goods were being manufactured without the aid of power.
-
2011 (7) TMI 24 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Application of stay - waiver of pre-deposit - It is an admitted case that both the appellants are engaged in printing and lamination of polyester film with metalized film/polyester film - show cause notices were issued to the appellants asking the appellants to reverse the Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 25,59,857/- and Rs. 14,11,216 respectively - It is pointed out that the excise duty paid by the appellants is much more than the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant - It is pointed out that Cenvat credit was not claimed or paid to the appellant in cash but was utilized in payment of excise duty only - Decided in the favour of assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC - Demand - Held that:- It is patent that the present case does not fall under Section 11AC of the Act which provides for minimum penalty. The penalty has been reduced by the Tribunal after recording a finding that on account of pilferage, some goods became substandard which does not show any deliberate mis-statement or concealment by the assessee - Decided in the favour of assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 16 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Clandestine removal - interest - penalty - Whether the duty, interest and penalty can be imposed when Commissioner of Appeals primafacie found that there is no clandestinely removal of the finished goods, therefore, thee was a correlation with the shortage of inputs - Held that: - There is a clear finding that there was shortage of finished goods, on account of which the assessee itself paid the duty. Finding on leviability of duty is not, thus, shown to be erroneous. However, in absence of requisite mensrea, penalty under Section 11AC of the Act has been rightly set aside and substituted by penalty under Rule 25(1)(b) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
-
2011 (7) TMI 12 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Valuation - Canalize removal - the appellants have drawn my attention to the Panchnama where the bags of Chetna cheqing tobacco were also shown to be printed with the month of manufacture as February 2006 - The bags of FIFTY FIFTY gutkah did not show any month of manufacture - As such, he submits that the findings of Commissioner (Appeal) are factually incorrect inasmuch as this mistake occurred in respect of all the products manufactured by the appellants - He clarifies that the date of manufacture as printed on the large packing bags of gutkha is irrelevant inasmuch as the same does not affect the marketability of the product - The pouches being less than 10 grams are exempted from declaring the date of manufacture - The month of manufacture is only printed on the wholesale bags/ packets containing 50 such pouches - He submits that there being no other evidence on record, the findings of the lower authorities that the bags printed with January and February 2006 as manufacturing dates, were not the same goods which were entered in RG-1 register, cannot be upheld - Hence, set-aside the confirmation of demand of duty, imposition of penalty and confiscation of the goods against M/s. Chetna Zarda Company and imposition of penalty on Shri Dinesh L. Daiya - Thus, the appeals are, accordingly allowed with relief to the appellants.
-
2011 (7) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT
Production capacity based duty - Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - Section 3A of the Act is an exception to Section 3 of the Act - the charging Section and being in nature of a non obstante provision, the provisions contained in the said Section override those of Section 3 of the Act. Rule 3 of 1997 Rules framed in terms of Section 3A(2) of the Act lays down the procedure for determining the annual capacity of production of the factory. The principle that a taxing statute should be strictly construed is well settled. It is equally trite that the intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. Once it is shown that an assessee falls within the letter of the law, he must be taxed however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. Rule 5 of the 1997 Rules will be attracted for determination of the annual capacity of production of the factory when any change in the installed machinery or any part thereof is intimated to the Commissioner of Central Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of the said Rules. - Decided in favor of revenue.
....
|
