Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2012 2012 2012 (1) Central Excise - 2012 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 78 of 78 Records

• 2012 (1) TMI 112 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Defaulter company tranferred to assessee by M/s. Gujarat Industrial Investment Corporation Limited – Department directed petitioner to clear outstanding excise dues of defaulter company - Held that:- there is need to examine the terms of the contract, conditions of sale, decisions relied upon by the appellant in the light of statutory provisions in the Central Excise Act relating to recovery, which requires detailed hearing and since the issue involved is legal and prima-facie the issue seems to be covered by the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of T.C. Spinners Pvt. Limited [2008 (9) TMI 475 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - I consider it appropriate that the requirement of pre-deposit is to be waived and stay has to be granted against recovery during the pendency of appeal in this case - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 111 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- duty for the entire month of April, 2010 had been paid in the beginning of month - 5th April, 2010 at the rate of duty in force at that time. The rate of duty was reduced only w.e.f. 13-4-2010. In view of this, we are of prima facie view that in respect of clearances w.e.f. 13th April, 2010 the appellant could not have recovered duty at the higher rate from their customers. We find that the Tribunal in its judgments in cases of Shri Rajendra Rolling Mills v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad reported in [2004 (2) TMI 138 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and C.C.E., Mumbai-V v. Shree Ram Textile reported in [2005 (9) TMI 154 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that the provision of Section 11B are not applicable for refund of excess duty paid under compounded levy scheme. We, therefore, of prima facie view that in this case the refund claim is not hit by principle of unjust enrichment. The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand and interest is, therefore, waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 110 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Denial of CENVAT credit - GTA Service - Held that:- assessee claimed support, inter alia, from the Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision in ABB Ltd. vs. Commissioner: [2009 (5) TMI 48 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] wherein CENVAT credit on GTA service used in the aforesaid manner by a manufacturer of final product was held to be admissible to them for a period prior to 1.4.2008, the date on which Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules was amended to substitute the word upto for the word from occurring immediately before the phrase place of removal - transportation of final products from factory to the premises of buyers was also covered by the expression from the place of removal used in the text of the definition of input service under Rule 2 (l) prior to its amendment. As the period of dispute in this case is prior to 1.4.2008, the appellant can legitimately claim the benefit of the High Court’s judgment - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 109 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- It can be seen from the above that Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 provides that where Cenvat Credit has been wrongly taken and there is suppression/fraud/collusion/mis-declaration with intention to evade duty, the manufacturer shall be liable to pay penalty under Section 11AC of the Act. Similarly, Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is applicable only when a person deals with the goods which he knows that are liable to confiscation or issues invoices without supplying the goods for facilitating the availment of Cenvat credit. None of the provision covers a situation like this wherein the manufacturer is a Private Limited company and the person on whom the penalty is imposed is the Director of the company. As submitted by the appellant, the Director is not covered by the relevant rules and therefore penalty imposed on the Director cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 108 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Duty demand - Assessee engaged in the manufacture of computers and was selling them in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency and he was receiving the bills, receipts and quotations in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency using the blank letter heads found in the office belonging to M/s. Com Trade Agency - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded a finding that the cheque book of M/s. Com Trade Agency was recovered from the premises of appellant when the same does not find mention in the panchnama at all. Therefore, there is no basis for this finding. Further, no investigation has been carried out with the bank to find out who had opened account in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency and who operated this account, especially in view of the fact that both the statements of Shri Rajesh Manglani were retracted.

  Signatures will obviously not tally with the actual signature of Shri Rajesh Manglani, which he has put in the statement etc. Findings of both the lower authorities are not clear as to which signature tallies with which and there is no clarity as to who issued the bills in the name of M/s. Com Trade Agency. In this case also, the efforts made by the officers in recording statement of the buyers would have been of great help if the buyers were to say that they had dealt with M/s. Siddhi Computers or Shri Rajesh Manglani. None of 6 buyers whose statements have been recorded have stated that they had dealt with Shri Rajesh Manglani or they had purchased the computers from M/s. Siddhi Computers. All of them have admitted that they purchased computers from M/s. Com Trade Agency. These statements, in reality, go totally against the case of the Department since the finding is that the M/s. Com Trade Agency was a dummy unit, whereas the buyers are saying that they have purchased the computers from M/s. Com Trade Agency. There is no evidence of any efforts having been made to trace Shri Harish Soni, either by the Department or by the party - Department has not been able to make out a case against the appellant as regards manufacture of computers and clearance of the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 107 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - Assesse manufacturer of wiring harness which are classifiable under heading 8544 30 30 - Held that:- Explanation to Section 2(d) is to the effect that excisable goods would include any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable. As such, it is clear that said explanation relates to marketability aspect of the product - in any case waste and scrap arising in the appellants factory would not prima facie get covered under 8548 90 00 but may prima facie get covered under Heading 7404 00 12. Inasmuch as the show cause notice proposes classification of the waste and scrap under Heading 8548 90 00 with which we prima facie do not agree, we find that the appellants have earned their stay - Stay granted.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 106 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Duty demand - Recovery of the credit in under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act - Bar of limitation - Held that:- Rule 3(5) provides that inputs or capital goods, on which CENVAT credit has been taken, can be removed as such from the factory of the manufacturer of the final products on payment of an amount equal to the credit availed thereon. Such removal is required to be made under an invoice referred to in Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. If these provisions are carefully perused, it would become clear that the removal of goods envisaged is a removal for good just like the removal of an excisable final product. A case of removal of input or capital goods to a job worker for further processing, testing, repair, re-conditioning or any other purpose is governed by Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

  If the job-worked goods are not received back in the factory of the manufacturer of final product within such period, the manufacturer of final product shall pay an amount equivalent to the CENVAT credit attributable to the input or capital goods, by debiting the amount in the CENVAT account or otherwise. Rule 4(5)(a) allows CENVAT credit on the input to be taken by the manufacturer of final product before removal of the input to the job worker. It was this right which was exercised by the present appellant and the same is not assailable - manufacturer of final product is entitled not only to avail credit on the input supplied to their job worker but also to take credit of the duty paid on the intermediate product by the job worker - Following decision of VENLON POLYESTER FILM LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., BANGALORE-III [2007 (9) TMI 354 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA] - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 89 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs 70 lakhs - clandestine removal and production has been established against the assessee and clubbing of turnover of assessee firm with turnover of sister concern was made – Held that:- Appellant has made out the prima facie case by insisiting that due to its financial position, constraints & adverse market conditions, it is not in a position to pay the pre-deposit and thus would be deprived of his right to be heard and press their appeal. Further appellant have accepted to furnish surety or create a charge on its immovable property so that recovery can be made in case the demand is accepted. Thus, directions of the tribunal are modified. Appellant is required to pay Rs 40 lacs as per schedule specified and is required to deposit papers/title documents of its property. The appellant will also file an undertaking that they shall not dispose of, sell, or encumber or rent out property – Decided in favor of assessee to the extent indicated above.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Whether period of limitation would be applicable on demand for payment of interest – duty imposed vide order dated 12.09.2001 paid by assessee - no direction for payment of interest in order-in-original or in the appellate order - letter dated 10.11.2004 demanding differential duty issued - another letter dated 19.10.2005 demanding interest on differntial duty issued - Held that:- Period of limitation, unless otherwise stipulated by the statute, which applies to a claim for the principal amount should also apply to the claim for interest thereon. Period of limitation prescribed for demand of duty u/s 11A is normally one year and, in exceptional circumstance of a case falling under the proviso to Section 11A(1), the period of limitation is five years. But that would be applicable only in case of misstatement, fraud, concealment etc., which is not the case here. As such, in the present case, the period of limitation for the demand for duty would be one year. Thus, the period of limitation for demand of interest thereon would be one year - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 55 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on ground of time bar - delay of 180 days – Held that:- Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, provides that appeal is to be filed within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order and the Commissioner (Appeals) is empowered to condone further delay of 30 days. Supreme Court in the case of Singh Alloys held that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. In the present case, there is a delay of 180 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) which is beyond the condonable period. - Decided against the assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 54 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  CENVAT credit on own final product returned by buyers – returned goods were remelted by using same machinery and fresh products emerged – duty paid on such goods – Held that:- As per Rule 16, as clarified in Chapter 18 of the Supplementary Instructions issued by CBEC, where the returned goods are subjected to a process amounting to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay duty at the appropriate rate on the goods so manufactured, and for payment of such duty, the CENVAT credit of the duty paid on the returned goods could be utilized. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
  

  Rejection of application for condonation of delay – consequently dismissal of appeal on ground of limitation by Tribunal – papers of appeal were misplaced by counsel of assessee - Held that:- Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view in the matter after all the appellant was not going to gain anything by not filing the appeal and the reasons given by the appellant was the mistake of its counsel who had also filed his personal affidavit. Therefore, Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 42 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Plea for restoring penalty imposed in the original order – shortage of inputs found during search - duty has been paid along with admissible interest – CESTAT upheld order of Commissioner(Appeals) reducing penalty - Held that:- Discretion exercised by the CESTAT does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor it violates any provision of law. Further, Revenue has not been able to point out anything from the record for taking a view different than the one taken by the CESTAT and the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Production capacity based duty – application of Rule 5 of the Hot Re-rolling Steels Mills Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 - manufacturer had made changes in installed machinery or any part thereof after seeking approval of the Commissioner of Excise in terms of Rule 4(2) of 1997 Rules – Period involved 01.09.97 to 31.03.2000 - Held that:- Supreme Court held in case of CCE vs Doaba Steel Rolling Mills (2011 - TMI - 204191 - Supreme Court Of India) that Rule 5 springs into action and has to be given full effect to where annual capacity is determined/ redetermined by applying the formula prescribed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3. In the absence of any other Rule, sub rule (3) of Rule 3 would be attracted for re-determination of production capacity of a factory, on furnishing of information to the Commissioner as contemplated in Rule 4(2) of the 1997 Rules. Thus, in present case Rule 5 of 1997 Rules would apply and the annual capacity so determined shall be deemed to be actual production during the financial year 1996-97, which is period involved in the present case. - Decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Validity of power of Tribunal to grant statutory right to the assessee to deposit the amount of penalty u/s 11 AC of the Central Excise Act - Show-cause notice issued by Assistant Commissioner raising the demand and imposing penalty did not indicate regarding the benefit of depositing the amount within 30 days – Held that:- Once an earlier order was not passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 AC of the Act then the Tribunal was fully justified in granting one opportunity to the assessee to pay the amount of penalty in terms of proviso to Section 11 AC of the Act within a period of 30 days by earning the benefit of paying penal amount to the extent of 25% instead of amount equivalent to the amount of duty. - Decided against the revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether the addition and mixing of polymer and additives to base bitumen results in the manufacture of a new marketable commodity and as such exigible to Excise duty – assessee engaged in the supply of Polymer Modified Bitumen (PMB) & Crumbled Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB) – Revenue contended that such process carried out amounted to manufacture – Held that:- In this case, neither in the Section Note nor in the Chapter Note nor in the Tariff Item do we find any indication that the process indicated is to amount to manufacture. Thus, it is evident that the said process of adding polymers and additives to the heated bitumen to get a better quality bitumen, viz. PMB or CRMB, cannot be given an extended meaning under the expression manufacture in terms of Section 2(f) (ii) of the Act. The said process did not result in transformation of bitumen into a new product having a different identity, characteristic and use. It is well settled that mere improvement in quality does not amount to manufacture.

  Thus, PMB or CRMB cannot be treated as bituminous mixtures falling under CSH 27150090 and shall continue to be classified under CSH 27132000 pertaining to tariff for petroleum bitumen. - Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 19 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Whether the glass bottles and crates which are used for selling beverages and were re-usable would be exigible to excise duty or not – Section 35 G of the Central Excise Act - Held that:- Once there is a pure finding of fact that beverage alone are sold without selling of bottles and crates then it would be obvious that no excise duty would be chargeable on the bottles and crates. No question of law much less a substantive question of law within the meaning of Section 35G of the Act would arise. - Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (1) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Cenvat / Modvat Credit - plastic films/poly paper used for testing machines - for forming commercial/technical opinion as to their marketability/ excisability - whether plastic films/poly paper would be eligible for credit - whether use of plastic films/poly paper used for testing machines would be held as used in the manufacture of or use in relation to the manufacture of the final products - held that:- the process of testing the customised FandS machines is inextricably connected with the manufacturing process, in as much as, until this process is carried out in terms of the afore-extracted covenant in the purchase order, the manufacturing process is not complete; the machines are not fit for sale and hence not marketable at the factory gate. - the manufacturing process in the present case gets completed on testing of the said machines and hence, the afore-stated goods viz. the flexible plastic films used for testing the FandS machines are inputs used in relation to the manufacture of the final product and would be eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Rules. - Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

1234