|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 240 Records
-
2011 (7) TMI 968 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
By product versus waste - Whether the fatty acids/soap stock, waxes and gums obtained in course of refining of the vegetable oils are eligible for duty exemption under the Notification No. 89/95-C.E - It is a statutory obligation of the manufacturers of refined vegetable oil and vanaspati to remove free fatty acids, gums and waxes, as these substances are toxic substances - Held that:- The waxes and gums obtained in course of refining is covered by heading 1522. As regards soap stock, the same would also be covered by Heading 1522, as, as per HSN Explanatory Notes of heading 1522, this heading among other things, covers soap stocks which are the by-product of oil refining, produced by neutralisation of free fatty acids with a base (sodium hydroxide) and consist of mixture of crude soap, natural oils or fats. As regards, fatty acids obtained in course of refining, the same by virtue of Chapter Note 1(e) to Chapter 15 are excluded from the purview of Chapter 15 and the same are specifically covered by Heading 3823. Therefore, each of the three by-products, soap stock/fatty acids, waxes and gums are the manufactured products covered by Central Excise Tariff and since it is not under dispute that the same are marketable, the same have to be treated as excisable product chargeable to Central Excise Duty.
A distinction has to be made between the term ‘by-product’ and the term ‘waste.’ - The by-product would be waste only if it is of no value or negligible value something which the manufacture would want to get rid of - Held that: the products, in question, have not been shown to be of no value or negligible value which have only to be discarded, the same would not be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 89/95-C.E - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 967 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Under valuation of the goods cleared during the relevant period by the assessee - The appellants contested the show-cause notice on merits claiming specifically that the amount which is received back from the consignment agents may be more in a few consignment, but in some consignments, it could be less - It can be seen from the above reproduced Section that when there is a normal price of the goods which are already sold by the appellants to a buyer in the course of wholesale trade, it would become a normal price - In the absence of specific provisions to consider the consignment agent’s place as place of removal, during this period the price charged at consignment agents place cannot be considered as a price from the place of removal for adding into assessable value - Held that: the appellant has been taking consistent stand before the lower authorities that there is no evidence that the price shown for clearance from factory gate was vitiated As regards the demand for the period from 28-9-1996 to 28th February, 1997, it is undisputed that the provisions of amended Section 4(4)(b) were applicable and the premises of the consignment agents was also considered as place of removal - Held that: the appellants should have discharged duty liability on the clearances to consignment agent based upon the price charged by and at consignment agents’ premises at or about the same time. - Appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (7) TMI 926 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Demand for duty of Central Excise to the extent of Rs. 37.42 crores - 100% EOU - Notification 1/95-C.E. - The allegation against the Appellant, found to have been established by the Commissioner, was that there was a breach of the conditions attached to the notification and that the raw material was diverted to the local market - Tribunal noted that the Appellant had pleaded that some of the raw materials procured indigenously were sent to job workers and the finished goods procured by the job workers were duly received in the EOU and were subsequently exported - Coupled with the finding of fact is a prima facie finding of the Tribunal that the Appellant did not obtain export obligation discharge certificates from the Development Commissioner and had failed to establish compliance with the primary requirement that indigenously procured raw material be used in the manufacture of the finished goods for export - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (7) TMI 925 - CESTAT, DELHI
Whether Commissioner (A) has jurisdiction to remand the matter - Bearing in mind the principle behind the said provisions comprised under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and taking into consideration the facts of the case, it has to be presumed that the authorities had exercised their duties and functions in regular course of exercise of those duties and functions in accordance with provisions of law - It is also to be noted that the appeal is essentially on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter it is settled law that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to remand the matter - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (7) TMI 924 - CESTAT, DELHI
Rule 5 of Hot Re-rolling Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - Held that: the Commissioner had held otherwise and being so, considering the decision of the Apex Court, the impugned order in that regard cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Commissioner for re-determination of the capacity, bearing in mind the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (7) TMI 923 - CESTAT, DELHI
Notification No.108/95-CE dated 28.08.95 - The purchase order disclosed that the split air-conditioners were meant for the use in the leased residences - merely because the goods were not used for offices but for residential purposes, it can not make any difference once the authorised officer had certified that such goods even though were meant for use in the leased residences, the same were for official purposes by the World Bank - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 921 - CESTAT, DELHI
Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. dated 8.4.2005 - The statement of Shri Satya Narayan Chandak, proprietor of M/s Shankara Silk & Sarees was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in his statement he admitted that the raw silk yarn in question were purchased from the Appellant M/s L.G.W. Ltd - the import is made in 2007 and there is still time to issue a proper Show Cause Notice if so required. The issue of jurisdiction is not raised before the lower authority, hence there is no finding on this issue - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (7) TMI 920 - CESTAT, DELHI
Application for stay - Classification - Rebate of excise duty - The provision of law not only speaks of non maintainability of appeal in relation to the specified orders but it also speaks of absence of jurisdiction to the Tribunal to entertain or deal with the appeal against such order - It is not in dispute that the matter relating to claim of rebate was finally decided by the lower authorities earlier which had been subjected to appeal and further proceedings in that regard - the appeals in question are not maintainable taking into consideration the provisions of law comprised under Section 35B(1) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (7) TMI 919 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Cash refund - unjust enrichment - The duty claimed as refund had been paid on an intermediate product of theirs, which was captively consumed in the manufacture of their final product which was cleared without payment of duty by virtue of the tariff rate of duty being 'nil' - It appears,Chartered Accountant's certificates were considered as evidence against bar of unjust enrichment in some of the cases cited before us - the matter has to be reconsidered by the original authority which did not have the benefit of the documentary evidence referred to by the learned consultant, nor the benefit of any case law cited before us - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of remand
-
2011 (7) TMI 918 - SUPREME COURT
Evasion of duty - Clandestine clearance - In the case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (2009 -TMI - 33419 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Despite the availability of such evidence on record, the High Court was not justified to hold that there was no evidence adduced or brought on record in support of the contention that there was no malice or clandestine approach to evade payment of duty - Appeals are allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (7) TMI 916 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - CENVAT credit - The contention of the appellant is that CENVAT credit was availed on outward transportation of the goods to customer premises and it is an activity relating to business and, therefore, credit cannot be denied - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) has held that the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal shall be treated as input services in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 915 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Rule 173Q(1) on the ground that they had contravened certain provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - it appears that the differential amount of duty was paid by the assessee after a visit of preventive officers of the department to the factory - the assessment done by the appellant at the time of clearance of the goods was not provisional assessment as contemplated under Rule 9B. At best, it was a self-assessment under Rule 6(b) - the assessable value determined at the time of clearance of the goods and the duty paid at that time were lower than the correct assessable value required under Rule 173C and the correct amount of duty required under Rule 173F respectively. - Thus the contravention of Rules 173C and 173F is indisputable in this case.
Whether a contravention of the above kind would attract Rule 173Q(1) - As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the show-cause notice did not allege that the assessee had contravened any Rule with intent to evade payment of duty - the appellant cannot be allowed to say that the penalty should be set aside on the ground that any particular clause of Rule 173Q(1) was not specifically invoked in the show-cause notice - The offence is purely one of contravention of certain provisions of the Central Excise Rules without mens rea. This situation would call for redetermination of the quantum of penalty. In this connection, we have noted that the maximum penalty prescribed under Rule 173Q at the relevant time was three times the value of the goods and the minimum penalty prescribed was Rs.5,000/-. We are of the view that the minimum penalty would suffice the purpose of this case on the facts and circumstances which we have noted. In the result, the quantum of penalty stands reduced to Rs.5,000/-.
-
2011 (7) TMI 914 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Demand - Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules - The present proceedings originated from show-cause notice dated 25.7.2002, which was issued by the department to recover differential duty of Rs.9,22,304/- from the assessee for the quarter ending 30.9.1998 as also for imposition of penalty - Held that: Where the department did not expect the assessee to disclose information relevant to valuation of the goods under Section 4 of the Act, it cannot be said that any non-disclosure of such information amounted to suppression - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 913 - CESTAT, DELHI
Penalty - Demand - Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the penalty on the ground that there is issue of interpretation whether the assessee is entitled for credit on welding electrode which are being used for repair and maintenance of plant an machinery or not - Held that: the ingredients of Section 11AC are absent in the facts and circumstances of the present case - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (7) TMI 912 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Evasion of duty - Suppression of facts - Demand - revenue neutral - Both Proviso to sub Section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Section 11AC ibid use the same expressions like fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement, suppression of facts, or contravention of provisions with intent to evade payment of duty and once the conditions that extend normal period of limitation for demand to five years then it would attract imposition of penalty under Section 11AC ibid - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (7) TMI 911 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Adjustment of amount of penalty with the Sanctioned amount of Refund - The appellant challenged the confirmation of demand and imposition of penalty. - The only contention of the department is that there was no stay order against the imposition of penalty therefore, adjustment was proper and legal. - there is also no dispute that the order vide which the penalty was imposed has been remanded by the Tribunal to the lower adjudicating authority - there is no question of adjustment on account of penalty. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2011 (7) TMI 908 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - GTA services - Rule 3 read with Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore (2009 -TMI - 34139 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) has held that the services availed by a manufacturer for outward transportation of final products from the place of removal shall be treated as input services in terms of Rule 2(l)(ii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 907 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Clandestine clearance - extended period of limitation - learned SDR submits that, as the appellant suppressed a material fact with intent to evade payment of duty, they are liable to pay interest on duty under Section 11AB and penalty under Section 11AC - It would, therefore, appear that Section 11AC is not a provision exclusively applicable to cases in which the proviso to Section 11A(1) is invoked - If the provisions of Section 11AC and the ruling of the apex court are understood differently, it can have the effect of permitting deliberate defaulters of duty to escape penal liability by virtue of the fact that payment of duty was evaded within the normal period - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 906 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - period of limitation - valuation - inclusion - On account of the grant of marketing rights and incurring advertisement and publicity expenses and selling expenses, there should be a flow back of money from M/s. VMPL to M/s. VDIL so that the assessable value of the products sold can be revised upwards so as to include these elements in the assessable value - it is further seen that the appellant had filed classification list effective from 1.3.1994 wherein they had declared that the goods are manufactured by the appellant but are marketed by M/s. Vadilal Milk Products Ltd. and the goods are bearing the brand name 'VADILAL' - the existence of the agreement for sale of marketing rights and the incurring of the expenditure by the marketing company was clearly known to the department - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (7) TMI 905 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - the case where ingredients of Section 11AC are present, that calls for action confiscation and penalty under Rule 25. Both confiscation of goods as well as levy of penalty is permissible when the deliberate act of the assessee results in extinct of the goods making that beyond reach of Excise Authorities - In the present case confiscation was ordered invoking Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 which is subject to provision of Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 was without bringing out any ingredients of that section. In absence of foundation in the show cause notice as to the ingredients of confiscation, the order of confiscation made by authorities below is unsustainable - Appeal is dismissed
........
|
