|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 176 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 1324
... ...
... ... ..... b) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is regarding inclusion of NCCD for computation of Brand rate of Drawback on the goods exported. Any appeal against these orders of Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue does not lie before this Tribunal. In view of the above, all the Stay Petitions and appeals stand disposed off as not maintainable in terms of first proviso to Section 129A(1)(b) of Customs Act, 1962. Revenue may consider moving correct forum, if they are advised to do so. Stay Petitions also stand disposed of. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1317
... ...
... ... ..... Rules 53 and 173Q(b) and (d) of the Rules?” 2. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the similar question in the case of Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 320 (S.C.), where it has been held thus “…...There being no finding that the appellant intended to take the scrap outside the factory premises, the confiscation of the scrap which, according to the appellant, was to be recycled, cannot be held to be justified and consequently, the confiscation of scrap as well as penalty levied cannot be sustained.” 3. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, in this case also, the scrap was not taken outside the premises and it was meant for recycling. As such, confiscation of the scrap and imposition of penalty was illegal. However, ₹ 25,000-00 penalty which is levied is not challenged by the assessee. In that view of the matter, the reference is answered accordingly.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1303
... ...
... ... ..... ay condoned. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1297
... ...
... ... ..... statement given by the respondents' counsel and pleading on record, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to represent his cause to the competent authority, who shall look into the matter and take a decision with regard to the disputed articles and passed a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously and preferably say within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. While deciding the representation, the respondents shall take into account the order dated 06.03.1978 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Lucknow. Subject to above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1263
... ...
... ... ..... us and not the subsequent one delivered in the case of Allied Photographics India Ltd. (supra). 17. However, we have already pointed out that the aforesaid question of law, sought to be raised by Mr. Mukherjee, is immaterial for the purpose of disposal of this reference in view of the concurrent finding of fact based on evidence by both the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal below on the question of unjust enrichment which is essentially a question of fact. 18. We, thus, find that in the fact of the present case the Tribunal below rightly affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Appeals on the question of unjust enrichment and directed to refund of the excise duty in favour of the assessee. 19. The reference, thus, fails. 20. In the facts and circumstances, there will, however, be no order as to costs. 21. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1262
... ...
... ... ..... heir claim. 8. Though various contentions are sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants once the basic facts establishing clandestine removal of the goods having been clearly established by the department, and the appellants having failed to disprove the said case against the department merely by referring to numerous reported cases, it would not justify or warrant interference by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Each case will have to be considered on the facts of the particular case. Undoubtedly, the charge of clandestine removal is a serious charge and has to be established by cogent evidence. In the case in hand, the materials referred above are more than sufficient to establish the case of the clandestine removal of the goods by the appellants and failure of the appellants to pay the duty on such goods. In our considered opinion, therefore, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order and hence the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1258
... ...
... ... ..... of the Gujarat High Court in CCE & Cus., Surat-II v. MTZ Polyfilms Ltd. - 2010 (256) E.L.T. 539 (Guj.). We are in respectful agreement with the decision of the Gujarat High Court in MTZ Polyfilms Ltd. Thus, the decision of the Tribunal that it was not a case of suppression of facts on the part of the respondents from the Department, is purely a finding of fact and it cannot be said that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is perverse as nothing has been produced to hold as such. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, as the authorities below have rightly held that there is no suppression of fact by the respondent and moreover, the show cause notice, issued on 5-6-2007, was beyond the period of limitation, i.e., one year. 7. For the reasons aforestated, the instant appeal is dismissed and the order under appeal is affirmed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1253
... ...
... ... ..... to drop the demand of duty payable by the petitioner. The other contentions of the petitioner that the penalty cannot be imposed; demand of interest under Section 11AC of the Act, 1944 is not sustainable; that appropriation of duty along with interest from the amount due from the petitioner is illegal; that quantification of duty payable by the petitioner is incorrect and other contentions supra are devoid of merit. 18. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances narrated hereinbefore, we do not find any error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. As a result, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed. 19. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open for the petitioner to file an appropriate application as stated supra, under Rule 21 of the Rules, 2002 for remission of payment of central excise duty on the alleged loss of SKO if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1244
... ...
... ... ..... arned counsel for the Revenue, we have taken a decision on merits. In view thereof, there can be no question of a recall of the decision which has already been taken on the merits. Dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1164
... ...
... ... ..... 1) ELT 163 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Central Excise Act. 5. In view of this, the appeal is being taken up for hearing. As per the acknowledgment as reproduced in the order-in-appeal, the adjudication order was received by the appellant on 13.3.2008 and the appeal was filed on 13.6.2009. As per the provisions of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, the appeal has to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the adjudication order and the Commissioner (Appeals) can condone the delay of 30 days on showing sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the normal period. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Act. In view of this, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2011 (8) TMI 1150
... ...
... ... ..... his juncture, Mr. Santhanam submitted that as this Court has dismissed the writ petition, the respondents are likely to take an adverse view of the matter and may feel that there has been adjudication on the merits or an expression of opinion. When this Court had categorically stated that no opinion is expressed, it is expected from the authorities that they should not even remotely harbor the idea that there has been any delineation on the stand and stance put forth by the petitioner from any quarter. 8. Mr. Santhanam submitted that the adjudicating authority may not supply the relevant documents to the petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on this, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the adjudicating authority for supply of relevant documents. 9. Regard being had to the aforesaid analysis, we are not inclined to review the order passed on earlier occasion and, accordingly, the application for review stands rejected.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1131
... ...
... ... ..... ard both sides and perused the records. There is an admitted default in the case. The duty was not paid on the due date. The length of delay in payment of duty is well evident from record and also supported by Annexure A to show cause notice. It is elementary principal of jurisprudence that right to interest follows right to restoration. Section 11AA of Central Excise Act, 1944 has such object to achieve. It may also be stated that when public revenue is not collected by due date, public interest suffers and public welfare is given go bye. Such social philosophy is embedded in fiscal statute to realise interest from defaulters. Therefore the length of delay between due date of payment of duty and date of payment quantified interest payable on defaulted amount. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued on well founded allegation and reason cannot be discarded. Consequently, first appellate order is confirmed dismissing the appeal. Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court .
-
2011 (8) TMI 1111
100% EOU - appellant received 737 drums/barrels of finished goods from their Berhampur warehouse. Out of these, 566 drums of finished goods became unfit for human consumption - petitioner submit that the appellant intimated about spoiled goods in 737 drums well in advance and, as the department delayed inspection, the appellant had to destroy the same along with 198 more drums received subsequently because of the objection of the villagers regarding sanitation problems
-
2011 (8) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... al Excise, Shillong vs. M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd, Guwahati). We heard these writ petitions along with that Reference. For the reasons given in C. Ex. Ref. No.1/2009, it must be held that Education Cess on goods is not exempted under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 8-7-1999 and that CENVAT credit on Education Cess can be utilised under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only towards payment of Education Cess. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1093
... ...
... ... ..... owed in the case of Commissioner Central Excise, Ghaziabad vs. Explicit Trading and Marketing (P) Ltd. 2004 (169) E.L.T. 205 (Tri.-Del.) and this decision has been upheld by the apex court as seen from 2009 (240) E.L.T.A.16 (S.C) by dismissing the SLP filed by the assessees. Although the learned counsel for the assessees relies upon the recent decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Tyre Tops 2010 (250) E.L.T. 338 (H.P) holding that assessee cannot be asked to reverse MODVAT credit already taken, even though final product is exempt, the decision of the apex court's decision in Albert David is required to be followed and following the same, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal insofar as it relates to duty demand. However, this is not a fit case for imposition of penalty as the issue involved is interpretation of MODVAT rules. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above. Pronounced in court on 18-08-2011.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1091
Whether the liability for payment of an amount equal to 8 % of the value of the exempted goods u/r 6(3)(b) of CCR 2002/2004 can be fulfilled by mere reversal of credit involved in the inputs contained in the exempted product? - Held that: - Rule 6(3)(b) of the CCR 2004 provides that if the exempted goods are other than those described in condition (a), the manufacturer shall pay an amount equal to ten percent of the total price, excluding sales tax and other taxes if any, paid on such goods, of the exempted final product charged by the manufacturer for the sale of such goods at the time of their clearance from the factory -
We do not find substance in the contention of the department-appellant that the Company cannot reverse the credit until separate accounts were maintained, for which no finding has been recorded by the Tribunal - Rule 6(3)(b) is not attracted in the present case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1088
Waiver of pre deposit - exemption Notification No. 5/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998, 5/99-C.E., dated 28-2-1999, 6/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 and 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 - appeal dismissed for non compliance.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1087
Duty demand - Clandestine removal of goods - Assessee had indulged in the activity of manufacturing, transporting, depositing or in any other manner indulge in manufacturing and removing of excisable goods namely impregnated diamond scalves in contravention of provisions of rules and thereby rendered themselves liable for penal action under Rules 173Q(1) and 209A of the Central Excise Rules.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1081
Condonation of delay - petitioner was granted liberty by CESTAT, who refused to condone the delay, to approach revisional authority, who can condone the delay if thinks fit and proper - matter on remand.
-
2011 (8) TMI 1076
... ...
... ... ..... so as to attract levy of excise duty, (h) Whether a 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 purposes 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 proposition laid down by this Court in CEA No. 6/2007, following the said order, we hold that this appeal is not maintainable under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is disposed of as such, with liberty to the Revenue to file an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
........
|
