|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 177 Records
-
2011 (9) TMI 952
Reversal of Cenvat Credit – Notification No. 23/2004-CE, dated 1-3-2002 - Whether the Tribunal has erred in law by not appreciating the language of the relevant Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 which clearly state that ‘Cenvat credit shall not be allowed on such quantity of inputs which is used in the manufacture of exempted goods.
-
2011 (9) TMI 949
... ...
... ... ..... is inclusive and forming part of aggregate of the 50 of duties of customs. 4. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CESTAT”) answered the said question in favour of the assessees following the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vikram Ispat v. CCE, Mumbai - III (2000 (120) E.L.T. 800). We have gone through the order of the CESTAT and we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the Larger Bench. 5. We are also informed that the said judgment is taken on appeal and the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court and there is no stay. How that the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Switchgear and Control Technics (P) Ltd. 2011 (269) E.L.T. 496 (Kar.) has given liberty to the Revenue to approach the Supreme Court, we dismiss all these appeals, giving such liberty. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed. No costs.
-
2011 (9) TMI 948
... ...
... ... ..... peals on 25-3-2008. The issues raised in the present appeal are covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CEA No. 104 of 2009 Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh v. Raghav Alloys Ltd. decided on 20-4-2010 2011 (268) E.L.T. 161 (P & H) . For the reasons recorded in Raghav Alloys’s case (supra), present appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 946
Delay in sanction of rebate claim - Interest claim - Section 11B - petitioners' claim of interest on rebate beyond the period of three months from the date of applications.
-
2011 (9) TMI 945
... ...
... ... ..... ith interest in terms of Section 11BB of the Act. 19. As already noted the revisional authority also under similar circumstances had allowed the rebate claim with interest of the revisional petitioner therein. In decision of this Court in case of Padmanabh Silk Mills(supra), Division Bench had proceeded on footing that petitioner therein had made claim of interest on delayed refund under Section 11B of the Act. Judgement was rendered in different factual background. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners' claim of interest on rebate beyond the period of three months from the date of applications is granted. Adjudicating Authority shall calculate the interest expeditiously and preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 21. We record the statement of the petitioner that appeals before the Appellate Commissioner shall be withdrawn. 22. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (9) TMI 936
Waste, parings and scrap - benefit of the exemption Notification – assessee submitted that on the basis that Notification 54/88 applied, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption to the extent that it provided for payment of nil rate of duty.
-
2011 (9) TMI 935
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (9) TMI 934
Condonation of delay - the petitioners were prosecuting the remedy before a wrong forum though under bona fide belief - the appeal papers were not returned to the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate forum even after several reminders - Held that: - The time spent in prosecuting remedy before a wrong forum under bona fide belief would fall under exclusion clause as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act - when the Tribunal directed its registry to return the papers for presentation before appropriate forum and the case of the petitioners is that such documents were not supplied, the entire issue has to be looked from the angle of the petitioners. Petitioners had bona fide filed their appeal before a forum which lacked jurisdiction - delay to be condoned - Revisional Authority shall entertain the revision of the petitioners on merits - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2011 (9) TMI 933
Classification of product “Shahicool herbal sharbat” - labels of product claim the product “Shahicool Herbal Sharbat” as an “Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine” and not as a beverage - product “Shahicool herbal sharbat” was considered by the licensing authority i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh, Indian Medicines and Homoeopathy Department, as Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine - all the ingredients find mention in ‘Bhavprakash’ a book of Ayuvedic Medicine.
-
2011 (9) TMI 932
... ...
... ... ..... technical lapse. It is further observed that other documents submitted by the claimants that number of packages, number of sachet, gross weight, net weight, total value of the goods tally with all the export documents which also proves that the goods in question have been correctly and actually exported out of India, realization of foreign exchange have taken place. Here substantial requirement of law is fulfilled so the rebate cannot be denied for minor procedural infraction as held by this authority in the case of Cotfab Exports reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 1027 (G.O.I.). Moreover the Customs have certified on the ARE-1 that goods have been exported vide relevant Shipping Bill. There is no reason for not accepting said customs certification. 12. In view of above discussions, Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same. 13. The revision application is therefore rejected being devoid of merit. 14. So, ordered.
-
2011 (9) TMI 930
Clandestine removal - stock of copper pipes to the extent of 1567.25 kgs. in ready to dispatch condition was found in excess than the recorded balance in RG-1 register - whether the copper pipes found in excess than the recorded balance at the time of visit of the officers are to be confiscated and penalty imposed?
Whether the Modvat credit availed by the appellant in respect of copper foils was in accordance with the law or not?
-
2011 (9) TMI 929
... ...
... ... ..... r note. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. Prima facie, the activities undertaken by the applicants on the imported readymade garments involved repacking from bulk pack to retail pack and labelling on the product boxes with a view to render the products marketable. Therefore, on merits, the demands are, prima facie, sustainable. However, we are in agreement with the submissions of the ld. Advocate that there may not be justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. 6. In view of the above, we direct the applicants to deposit totally a sum of ₹ 25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) towards demand in both the cases within a period of four weeks from today and to report compliance on 5-10-2011. Subject to depositing of the amounts as above, we waive pre-deposit of balance amounts of dues as per the impugned orders and stay recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeals. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (9) TMI 928
... ...
... ... ..... ic reference to the provisions invoked in the show cause notice and by the adjudicating authority. The notice purported to invoke sub-rule (3) of Rule 15 which provided for maximum penalty of ₹ 2,000/-, but the adjudicating authority chose to invoke sub-rule (4) to impose penalty equal to CENVAT credit on the respondent, which was clearly beyond the scope of the show cause notice. The appellate authority, it appears, has not adverted to the issue in this perspective and hence its decision cannot be sustained. In the result, penalty to the extent of ₹ 2,000/- under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 has to be sustained on the ground of wrong availment of CENVAT credit by the respondent. It is ordered accordingly. 5. The appeal of the Revenue stands allowed partly. The respondents shall pay interest of ₹ 9,558/- under Rule 14 and penalty of ₹ 2,000/- under Rule 15(3) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2011 (9) TMI 926
... ...
... ... ..... nly a passing observation which should not be treated as an order. 8. Government observes that it is undisputed fact that the applicant paid duty on the goods exported under claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. At the same time, they claimed drawback also. Applicant attempted to avail double benefit, which is not permissible under law. Since goods were not exported under bond in terms of Rule 19 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, duty was rightly paid. As such there is no question of treating said duty payment as voluntary deposit which can be returned in the manner in which it was deposited. Rejection of rebate claim does not make him entitled for re-credit of Cenvat credit when proper duty was paid in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, Government does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore upholds the same. 10. Revision Application is rejected being devoid of merit. 11. So, ordered.
-
2011 (9) TMI 924
... ...
... ... ..... lip;………………… (e) ………………………………… (f) ………………………………… From above, it is clear that rebate claim of duty paid on exported goods is not hit by unjust enrichment clause. Moreover applicant has claimed to have given credit of duty paid amount to the merchant exporter and the said practice was in vogue earlier also during 2007-08 and department has been sanctioning the rebate claims without raising any objection. As such, Government is of the considered view that rebate claim is admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 as there is no dispute of export of duty paid goods. Government sets aside the impugned orders and allows the revision applications. 10. The revision applications succeed in above terms. 11. So, ordered.
-
2011 (9) TMI 922
... ...
... ... ..... nt observes that now there is no restriction in the said Notification No. 40/2006-Cus., dated 1-5-2006, on claiming rebate of duty paid on exported goods and availment of Cenvat credit. Respondent-Department has not brought out any evidence on record till date, suggesting availment of any double benefit by the applicant. Moreover, applicants have stated that they were not using any inputs imported duty free under DFIA, in the manufacture of non-excisable/exempted/nil duty goods. The said contention is not disputed by department at any stage of appellate/revision proceedings. 13. In view of above circumstances, Government holds that said rebate claims are admissible to the applicant under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Therefore, Government sets aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allows the revision applications. 14. Revision Applications are succeed in above term. 15. So, ordered.
-
2011 (9) TMI 921
SSI exemption - Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1-3-2003 - time limitation - classification of various goods - Revenue is of the view that the products would get classified under Chapter Heading 48.20 while the assessee is of the view that the said products would get classified under Chapter Heading 49.11
-
2011 (9) TMI 903
Interest on refund claim - Held that:- Limitation contained in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is not applicable to the case of the first respondent since the amount in question was not paid towards excise duty but only by way of deposit during investigation. Moreover, as per Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, this Court can order payment of interest at a very reasonable rate and accordingly, learned single Judge directed the appellants to refund a sum of ₹ 13,20,578/- relating to the final order No. 471 of 2007, dated 30-4-2007 to the first respondent with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment to the first respondent. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 902
Levy of interest and penalty u/s 11AC on differential duty - whether the assessee would be absolved from the liability to pay interest and penalty in view of their payment of differential duty before the issuance of show cause notice - Held that:- Section 11AB deals with interest on delayed payment of duty. Similarly Section 11AC deals with penalty for short-levy or non-levy of duty in certain cases. Both these provisions indicate that in case the duty has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded by reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of the Central Excise Act or the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, the person who is liable to pay duty shall also be liable to pay penalty equal to the duty so determined. The assessee is also liable to pay interest for the period in question.
The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] observed that mere payment of differential duty whether before or after the show cause notice would not alter the situation and they would be liable for penalty in case the conditions for imposing such penalty spelt out in Section 11AC of the Act is attracted. Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2011 (9) TMI 901
Denial of rebate claim - Export of goods without payment of duty - original authority initially sanctioned rebate claims filed by the respondent - Failure to submit copy of BRC (Bank Realization Certificate) w.r.t. exports in question within 160 days from the date of sanction of rebate in terms of Board’s Circular No. 354/70/97-CX., dated 13-11-1997 - original authority confirmed the demand of already sanctioned rebate - appellate authority decided the case in the favour of respondent - Held that:- foreign buyer went into liquidation and hence could not repatriate foreign exchange to the respondent. However, the respondents were insured for their exported goods by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) who settled their claim in Indian Rupees - RBI Master Circular No. 9/2008-09 dated 1-7-2008 provides that the claims settled by ECGC and Private Insurance Companies regulated by IRDA should not be construed as export realization in foreign exchange.
Exports are entitled for rebate benefit only if the export realization is received in foreign currency. Such settlement cannot be taken as actual realization of the impugned export sale proceeds for the purpose of grant of rebate. As such, action for recovery of sanctioned rebate is legal and proper, for non-compliance of provisions contained in Board’s Circular No. 354/70/97-CX., dated 13-11-1997. Decided in favour of Revenue.
........
|
