|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 161 to 176 of 176 Records
-
2011 (8) TMI 104
Refund - assessees once again filed the claim for refund and refund was sanctioned vide order dt. 21.9.04 Rs.1,25,000/- was paid by cheque and the balance amount of Rs.3,11,679/- was allowed as CENVAT credit - assessees are not eligible to refund, in view of Tribunal s order dt.21.2.2011 - Decided in favour of the revenue
-
2011 (8) TMI 100
Penalty under Rule 209(A) - Notification No. 164/87 dated 10.6.1987 - in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others reported in (2010 -TMI - 78472 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - held that the Tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the object and purpose of the procedure laid down in Chapter X. It was also held that detailed procedures have been laid down in Chapter X so as to curb the diversion and misutilisation of goods which are excisable - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (8) TMI 99
Appeal u/s 35G - Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08.07.1999 - It is, therefore, quite clear that the Education Cess is nothing but a surcharge and its levy is completely independent of the levy of excise duty. Its calculation is also independent of the quantum of excise duty, since it is a flat rate of 2% of the aggregate of all duties of excise levied and collected by the Central Government - Held that: Education Cess is not exempted under Notification No.32/99-CE dated 08-07-1999 and that CENVAT credit of the Education Cess can be utilized under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 only towards payment of such Education Cess - Appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (8) TMI 93
Manufacture - whether the treatment given or the process undertaken by the appellant to Helium gas purchased by it from the open market would amount to manufacture, rendering the goods liable to duty under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - when the appellant was asked about the process which was being carried out on Helium gas before selling it to its customers, the representative of the appellant had refused to give any detail with regard to the process because, according to him, that process was a trade secret and he would not like to reveal the same - it is clear that the appellant was purchasing Helium at the rate of ₹ 520/- per Cum. and was selling the same after adding 40% to 60% profit - It can be very well said that the Helium purchased by the appellant was in a marketable state but it is equally true that by giving different treatment and purifying the gas, the appellant was manufacturing a commercially different type of gas or a new type of commodity which would suit a particular purpose - No duty was ever paid by the appellant on the Helium sold by it after giving some treatment so as to make it a different commercial product - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (8) TMI 90
Classification - Penalty - Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Intermediary product - There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the carbonless paper or self-copy paper emerges at the intermediate stage and has its own life but the same could be further used in the manufacture of stationery in continuous process - Circular dated 15.10.1991 - A bare glance on the aforesaid circular makes it crystal clear that the intermediary products referred to in the present appeal are not directly relatable to airlines tickets or embarkation/disembarkation cards - heading 48.16 with sub heading 4816.00, we find that it includes within its extent carbon paper, self-copy paper and other copying or transfer papers but other than those articles included in heading 48.09 which is specifically relatable to a particular size of paper and therefore we are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Commissioner that the intermediary products in the present case would fall and are classifiable under heading 48.16 whether the intermediary products are marketable or not - there is enough evidence available on record to show that not only the intermediary products in the present case are capable of being bought and sold in the market but they are in fact sold and purchased in the open market - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (8) TMI 85
Rebate - Tribunal has no jurisdiction in matters relating to a rebate of duty of excise on goods exported to any country or territory outside of India to decide under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the appeal lies to Joint Secretary, Govt. of India - In the preamble of the order in appeal this has been specifically mentioned. Under these circumstances, the prayer made by the respondents that matter may be taken up for early hearing and dispose of the appeal itself straight away by holding that appeal is not maintainable, is correct and deserve to be accepted - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (8) TMI 74
Application for stay - Demand - in the light of the observations made in the case of Bhagwati Silk Mills & Ors vide order No. [2011 -TMI - 203593 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] held that the impugned order issued in this case also needs to be reconsidered by the original adjudicating authority as per the directions given in the earlier case - matter is remanded back to original authority - appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (8) TMI 73
Penalty - Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Appellant contested show cause notice only on the ground that in the month of May their plant was shut down and they were facing serious financial hardship - there is no dispute as regards discharge of duty liability along with interest for the clearances made by the appellant during the month of March and April 2002 - held that there is no suppression of the clearances with an intention to evade payment of duty - It is only because of stringent financial condition, that the duty could not be paid in time and as soon as liquidity was available, duty was paid along with interest - there seems to be contravention of provisions of the law by the appellants and hence penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, may be attracted - though the show cause notice does not indicate imposition of penalty under Rule 27, to meet the interest of justice, we hold that appellant is to be penalised under Rule 27 - Appeal is disposed of
-
2011 (8) TMI 63
Central Excise – Wire and cables - Benefit under Notification no. 205/88 - C.E. dated 25.05.88 - Whether the insulated electrical cables manufactured by the appellant would be eligible for exemption under the above mentioned exemption notification - Since, the issue is concerned, it is no more res integral in view of the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Nicco Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta . v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta [2006 -TMI - 722 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - The facts in the said case as well as in the present case are similar and, therefore, need not consider the said issue again - In the circumstances, the first issue is decided in favour of the Revenue. imposition of penalty - Since, the issue with regard to the imposition of penalty in the present case is concerned, the Commissioner, himself in his order-in-original has stated that the issue involved in the case is of interpretational nature - Keeping in mind the said factor, the Commissioner thought it fit not to impose harsh penalty and a penalty of an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant while confirming the demand of the duty - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 56
Reversal of Cenvat credit - Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - assessee had not opted to maintain separate accounts of manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods and was, therefore, required to pay 10% of the total sale price of the exempted final product as duty - assessee had not availed any Cenvat Credit on Hydrochloric Acid for the manufacture of Gluten. Similarly no benefit of Cenvat Credit had been taken by the assessee on Bleaching Earth (which had produced Spent Earth) and on Activated Carbon (which had produced Spent Carbon) - Cenvat Credit availed on 15.7.2004 was reversed during the same month and further no Cenvat Credit on Hydrochloric acid was availed from 8/2004 to 12/2004 - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (8) TMI 40
Demand - whether the cost of packing charges expended/incurred by the appellant-company is liable to be included in the assessable value of the motorcycles manufactured by the appellant-company - It is also established from records that Rs.190/- is being charged as packing charges by the appellant and, therefore, the said amount which was collected as packing charges must have been passed on to the buyers - Held that: the packing which is given by the appellant-company to their motorcycles is necessary for putting the excisable article in the condition in which it is generally sold in the wholesale market at the factory gate and, therefore, such cost is liable to be included in the value of the goods and the cost of such packing cannot be excluded - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (8) TMI 35
Penalty under Rule 173Q (1) - Appellant purchased/ took over the factory premises of M/s. Akshay Daman Solvents Pvt. Limited and applied for Central Excise Registration.Further, having given undertaking to the department at the time of registration appellant cannot go back and say that undertaking given by them is not binding on them - It was communicated to the appellants that one case is pending in the name of M/s. Akshay Daman Solvents Pvt. Limited and demand of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,36,887/- with interest and penalty of equal amount and personal penalty of Rs. One lakh is pending against them - The Hon ble Supreme Court in Macson Marbles has held that on transfer of industrial unit by the State Financial Institution, liability to pay excise dues of the previous owner gets transferred to the purchaser. Further, having given undertaking to the department at the time of registration appellant cannot go back and say that undertaking given by them is not binding on them - Thus, in terms of Section 11 and undertaking given by the appellant and in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, appellant are liable for the dues against M/s. Prince Paper Mills - As regards interest, the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Elastolan Engineers and accordingly there is a need to re-calculate the interest amount as per law and as per the decision of the Tribunal in the case cited above - As regards penalty, Hon ble Supreme Court in Para 8 of the judgment in Macson observed that penalty cannot be recovered from the successor since successor did not get an opportunity to contest the same - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (8) TMI 33
Demand - Classification - the appellant is not challenging reversal of cenvat credit as well as interest. However, as regards penalty, he submits that there were several decisions of the tribunal taking a view that credit is admissible in respect of MS Angles, Channels, Plates, Beams etc., till the matter was settled - there were decisions taking a view that credit is admissible on these items, it cannot be said that appellant indulged in suppression of facts/ mis-declaration with an intention to evade payment of duty - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (8) TMI 25
Power to rectify mistake - Revenue submitted that the CESTAT has limited power to rectify its mistake under the provision of Section 35C(2) of the Act - the view that the CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application - Thus, CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers u/s 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside - the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers [1971 -TMI - 6255 - SUPREME Court], this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious - As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning.
-
2011 (8) TMI 24
Demand - Clandestine removal - articles of assorted jams, pickles, squashes, cooking sauces, chutneys, syrups, synthetic vinegars - Classification - there is no allegation of threat, force, coercion, duress or pressure being utilized by the officers to extract the statements which corroborated each other - It was also observed by the Tribunal that it could be said that an attempt was being made to clear those goods in tempo in a clandestine manner, when the company representative produced the invoices and other relevant documents in respect thereof - since there was clandestine removal of excisable goods, the period of limitation in the present case would have to be computed from the date of their knowledge, arrived at upon raids on the premises - It was also stated that in respect of all products both the "Product mark" and "Brand name" would appear side by side on all the labels, cartons etc. and that the "House mark" is used generally as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the image of the manufacturer, whereas "Brand name" is a name or trade mark either unregistered or registered under the Act. - it is clear that what was being used by the respondent under the expression "Kalvert" was a "Brand name" and not a "House mark" as sought to be alleged by the respondent and has been wrongly accepted by the Tribunal - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (8) TMI 4
Demand - Classification - Whether the Iron and Steel structures manufactured and used captively in the factory for installation of the Sugar manufacturing plant by the assessee can be classified as capital goods under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Notification No.67/1995 dated 16.03.1995 - Circular No. 276/110/96-TRV dated 02.12.1996 - Held that: We do not find fault with the reasoning of the Tribunal, since the Circular, on which reliance is now placed by the learned counsel, was not produced before the Tribunal and, therefore, going by the language employed in Rule 57Q, there is justification for the Tribunal for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Since in view of the circular, which is now brought to our notice, the Tribunal was not correct to reject the claim of the assessee on the aforesaid ground. However, this finding of ours will not assist the assessee, since we have held that Iron and Steel structures are not the components of machineries used in the installation of Sugar Manufacturing Plant - Decided against the assessee.
....
|
