-
2011 (9) TMI 1165
... ... ... ... ..... r adjournment. The notice issued to the appellant firm on the address given in the appeal memorandum returned with postal endorsement left . In these circumstances, the appeals are dismissed for non prosecution. (Dictated in Court.)
-
2011 (9) TMI 1164
... ... ... ... ..... counsel for the appellant which prompted the Tribunal to proceed with the same. At the same time we may also take note of the aspect that litigant cannot be allowed to suffer because of the mistake of the counsel. However, this is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. 9. In the present case, learned counsel engaged by the appellant, for two reasons did not wish to argue the matter before the Tribunal. Instead of informing the appellant about the same, he chose to write the aforesaid letter to the Tribunal on beha....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1153
... ... ... ... ..... nciples of which are applicable in this jurisdiction. Once the parties have contracted, then the petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its contractual obligation. The seller in Clause 2.7 has clearly represented that the liabilities are that of purchaser. 19. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. 20. However, before parting, we may record that the petitioner has raised an argument that the penalty consequent to non-deposit of either the Centr....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1123
... ... ... ... ..... , as stated above, is charged to compensate the Department for loss of revenue. Be that as it may, as stated above, the Scheme of Section 11A of the Act has since undergone substantial change and, in thecircumstances, in our view, the judgement of this Court in the case of M.R.F. Limited supra has no application to the facts of this case. In our view, the judgement of this Court in the case of SKF India Limited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 9. As the issue is squarely covered by the order of the H....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1122
... ... ... ... ..... plit the entire CENVAT credit into 415 entries in spite of taking the entire credit on a single entry on 29 November 2008 shows nothing but mens rea. Nothing more is necessary to prove the element of mens rea. The defence that the appellant was having a credit balance of ₹ 20 crores at any given point of time also would not come to their rescue in view of their deliberate attempt to split the single entry into 415 entries and taking the credit once again. Conclusion 21. The materials produced by the revenue clearly s....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1119
... ... ... ... ..... ay any duty. 4. The revenue contends that the duty is payable based on the sale price of the manufacturer. 5. Therefore, the issue between the parties, which arises for consideration in tis appeal, relates to the determination of the duty payable under the Act. The said determination of duty is to be done by the Apex Court under Section 130(L) of the Central Excise Act as held in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/s MANGALORE REFINERIES AND PETRO CHEMICALS LIMITED in CEA No. 6/2007 disposed off on 01-09-2010........ + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1088
... ... ... ... ..... d as waste. It is true that by merely establishing a prima facie case, interim order should not be passed at the same time, it would be undesirable to require assessee to pay the full or substantive part of demand, if demand raised has no locus to stand. In the present case we find that the Tribunal has applied its mind and after recording a finding that the appellant has established prima facie case, but that it cannot be said with certainty that the appeal may succeed. Considering the principles of law with regard to wai....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1074
... ... ... ... ..... parts and accessories of motor vehicles rejecting claim of the assessee for classification of the product as tarpaulin and canvas cloth classifiable under Chapter Heading 63.07. Prima facie, the goods in question cannot be treated as part and accessories of motor vehicles and therefore, prima facie, the classification under Chapter 87 is not appropriate. We therefore, waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the amount in dispute pending of the appeal.
-
2011 (9) TMI 1004
... ... ... ... ..... posit 50 of the penalty imposed. The finding of the Tribunal is that the petitioner manufactures goods of good quality, but describes the same as defective goods. The petitioner issued invoices to one party, but sold the goods to somebody else. The Tribunal recorded the finding, while considering the application for waiver of the pre-deposit. However, keeping in view the financial hardship being faced by the petitioner, we permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of penalty as directed by the Tribunal in its order dated....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 1003
... ...
... ... ..... ondoned. Appeals admitted. Hearing expedited.
-
2011 (9) TMI 997
Recovery of interest of ₹ 1,84,600/- on delayed payment of excise duty - The question of recovery of interest will arise only when the duty liability is finally determined.
-
2011 (9) TMI 995
Valuation (Central Excise) - Industrial use goods - MRP valuation - Goods sols in retail - Section 4 or Section 4A.
-
2011 (9) TMI 990
... ... ... ... ..... n the case of the very same assessee in CEA No. 17/2010 disposed off on 10th March 2011 2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.) , where this Court upheld the order of the Tribunal. 3. For the reasons set out in CEA No. 17/2010 disposed off on 10th March 2011, we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 978
... ... ... ... ..... ice objection that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue has relied upon a circular dated 5 October 2006 under which, in respect of large tax payer units, the LTU at Mumbai would have all India jurisdiction. That cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court, particularly, since the notice to show cause and the order of adjudication was passed by authorities at Pudhucherry. 3. The appeal is ordered to be returned for presentation to the appropriate Court.
-
2011 (9) TMI 977
Liability of interest - Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that: - Section 11AB of the Act had no application prior to the coming into force of the amendment. It is only after the amendment was introduced to Section 11AB of the Act, the assessee was liable to pay interest. The dispute pertains to the period prior to the amendment. Therefore, the authorities were justified in holding that there is no liability to pay interest under Section 11AB of the Act - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 976
... ... ... ... ..... n is contrary to Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the question that arise for consideration in this appeal is, who is the person who is liable to pay excise duty under the Act for job work. Said question does not fall within the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 35G. It has to be exclusively decided by the Apex Court under Section 35L in view of the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. M.M. Khambhatwala reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.). 3. In that view of the ....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 972
CENVAT credit - support structures - N/N. 16/2009-C.E. (N.T.), dated 7-7-2009 - capital goods - inputs - retrospective amendment
-
2011 (9) TMI 962
... ... ... ... ..... The assessing authority appropriated the amount paid by the assessee and imposed penalty under Rules 57U and 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Assessee is not challenging the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q. He is challenging the imposition of penalty only under Rule 57U. Rule 57U(6) provides where the credit of duty paid on capital goods has been taken wrongly by reason of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made the....... + More
-
2011 (9) TMI 959
... ... ... ... ..... ked in this appeal. 3. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax v. M/s Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (India) Private Limited, CEA 55/2007 disposed of on 21-4-2011, the appeal is not maintainable and it is rejected reserving liberty to the revenue to approach the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Act.
-
2011 (9) TMI 953
... ... ... ... ..... o the facts of this case. Learned Counsel for the appellant is correct. It is CEA 96/2010 where this question is involved. It is because of the typographical error which has resulted in. 3. We do not see any merit in this review petition and direct the office to correct the error in the order. Instead of CEA 96/2009, it should be CEA 96/2010 and the date of disposal is not 8-4-2011, it is 5-4-2011. 4. Accordingly, review petition is disposed of. 5. Sri Gururaj, learned Counsel takes notice for the respondent.
