|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 260 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1171
... ...
... ... ..... uo;s premises although they received the payments in advance and hence the dealer’s premises are the place of removal. This is a factual aspect to be verified in respect of each of the agreements because we find that some agreements indicate that the delivery will be made by the appellant at the dealer’s premises which others are silent on this point. 5. In this factual matrix, we find it is a fit case to remand all these matters back to the Original Adjudicating Authorities to verify as to when sale has to be taken place in terms of the Board’s circular (supra) and determine their eligibility of CENVAT credit under CCR, 2004. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authorities with a direction to examine the matter in terms of CBEC circular and as per the agreements entered into by the appellants with their dealers and pass orders after following the principles of natural justice. (Order pronounced on 20/12/2018 in open court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1143
... ...
... ... ..... o by the terms of the Notification issued under Section 5A of the Central Excise Act dated 8-7-1999. It would have been a different matter if any appropriate order had been passed withdrawing the benefit of exemption. Without having recourse to such a course of action, the benefit of Notification dated 8-7-1999 cannot be withheld on the ground that the petitioners did not set up pharmaceutical unit or did not have permanent registration which were not stipulated as conditions for exemption by any relevant law. Judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee also do not lay down that conditions beyond those laid down in exemption Notification or any other law can be insisted upon. 13. Accordingly, we allow this petition, set aside the impugned show cause notice and direct that a fresh decision be taken in the matter in accordance with law, after due opportunity to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1136
... ...
... ... ..... k the matter to the Commissioner. 2. Before we part, it is our duty to point out that the Tribunal has recorded in Paragraph 9 of its order that there is evidence on record to show that the appellant has received payment against the clearances shown in those registers. While, however, doing so, the Tribunal has not discussed the evidence. The fact, however, remains that the seized registers recorded genuine transactions, in respect whereof there is no dispute that payments were received and the same also reflected alleged clandestine transactions. There must be some evidence to show that in respect of all or any of those clandestine transactions, appellant had, in fact, received payments. We remind the Commissioner to apply his mind in that regard too. We make it clear that the observations made above will not stand in the way of the Commissioner and he will independently apply his mind and take his judicious decision without being influenced with the views expressed herein.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1133
... ...
... ... ..... hen such petition is filed, the High Court may consider the same in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties. We may make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case of the petitioners as well as the respondent. Ordered accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1121
... ...
... ... ..... Company Limited (supra). In any case, the facts of the present case are vitally different. The observations of this Court in case of India Nippon Company Limited (supra) cannot be applied. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on a decision in the case of Cosmonaut Chemicals v. Union of India dated 30-7-2008 in Special Civil Application No. 12862 of 2004 2009 (233) E.L.T. 46 (Guj.) and connected petitions to contend that when the delay is caused due to reasons attributable to the Department, refund claim should not be dismissed. In the present case, admittedly, this was not the ground on which even the petitioner claimed filing of delayed refund beyond the period of limitation. 6. In the result, issue being identical as arisen in Special Civil Application No. 11990 of 2004, this petition is also disposed of relying on the above observations without giving separate reasons. Rule is discharged.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... t of the Modvat credit was to withdraw the unintended benefit. When the petitioner and others who never enjoyed such unintended benefit having paid full duty, they could not have been classified along with others who had received such benefits. 16. In the result the impugned notification dated 3-5-1997 insofar as it limits the Modvat credit to the extent of amount of excise duty calculated at the rate of 10 ad valorem in cases where full excise duty at the rate of 15 was paid, is declared illegal and therefore, quashed. In other words, the application of clause (i) to the proviso shall be confined to only those cases where the manufacturers had purchased the inputs by paying the excise duty only at the rate of 10 during the relevant period. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits of refund of duty with statutory interest. We are informed that the petitioner had paid duty under protest at the relevant time. 17. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... r a part thereof. If the civil works contract has been awarded and completed prior to 1st June, 2007 in that event even if the payment has been received after 1st June, 2007, there would not be any liability. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in the construction of building and is a civil contractor and is not liable to service tax in respect of all the works contracts,of civil nature, which have been completed by it prior to 1st June, 2007. However, if any works contract has been awarded prior to 1st June, 2007 and was still under completion on 1st June, 2007 or thereafter payment received after 1st June, 2007 would be liable to levy of service tax. Similar will be the position in respect of the works contract of civil nature awarded from 1st June, 2007 till 1st July, 2012. We, therefore, clarify the legal position. The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad and submit its explanation. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1082
... ...
... ... ..... ted 2nd November, 2012 is modified to the extent that the respondents are restrained from proceeding with the hearing pursuant to the show cause notice impugned, till expiry of the time to file reply to the show cause notice. 5. Mr. Khaitan points out that the documents are voluminous. The petitioners have only been offered inspection of the documents and not with the copies of the documents. The process of inspection and taking down notes takes time. The time to file reply to the show cause notice shall, thus, stand extended till 15th February, 2013. The petitioners shall be given inspection of the requisite documents every day on day to day basis (except holidays) to enable the petitioners to complete the inspection and file their reply within 15th February, 2013. 6. The application being GA No. 3171 of 2012 is disposed of. 7. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1080
... ...
... ... ..... the shipping bill that is required to be filed together with the claim for rebate on duty paid on excisable goods exported. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the authorities below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had diled an application for rebate on 17 July 2007 which was beyond the period of one year from 12 february 2006 being the relevant date on which the goods were exported. Where the statue provides a period of limitation, in the present case in section 11B for a claim for rebate, the provision has to be compiled with as a mandatory requirement of law” 12. In view of above position, the rebate claim filed after stipulated time limit of one year being time barred in terms of section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 is rightly rejected in this case,. Therefore, government finds no infirmity in the impugned Order- in appeal and upholds the said order. 13. The revision application is rejected in terms of above 14. So, ordered.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1055
... ...
... ... ..... s SLP No. 33982/2012 and the same was dismissed on 23rd November, 2012. Consequently, order of the Tribunal is merged with the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court granted one week time from 22nd November, 2012 to comply with the interim order passed by the Tribunal. 2. In view of the above, Tribunal being sub-ordinate Court has no power to pass any other order at this stage but to carry out the direction of the Apex Court. It is, therefore, not possible to entertain Misc. application of the appellant which has been registered as Misc. application No. 4866/2012. Consequently, that is dismissed. 3. Notice is hereby issued to the appellant to show cause as to why its appeal should not be dismissed on 24.12.2012 for failure to carry out direction of Hon ble Supreme Court. The appellant may appear either in person or through its authorized representative to lead defence against the show cause notice. (Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1053
... ...
... ... ..... aid stay order, we find it so. Accordingly, we find that in this case also the appellant has deposited 25 of the amount of duty liability which has been confirmed by the lower authorities on direction of the first appellate authority. We consider this amount as enough deposit to hear and dispose the appeal. Application for waiver of balance amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. Registry is directed to link this appeal with appeal Nos. E/943 of 2011 and E/795 of 2011. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1039
Cenvat Credit - construction services - Waiver of pre-deposit and penalty - Held that: - setting up modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory premises was covered under input service at the material time - the applicants are able to make out a prima facie case for total waiver of pre-deposit. Therefore, the pre-deposit of dues adjudged is waived and recovery thereof is stayed during the pendency of the appeal - petition allowed.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1012
... ...
... ... ..... cannot be said that the raw materials have been supplied by M/s. Neelkamal Limited or their authorised persons. Therefore, prima Facies, we are of the view that the appellant company are not covered by the definition of 'job worker' under Rule 10A and the provisions of this Rule would not be applicable. In similar circumstances, the same view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hyderabad vs. M/s Innocorp Ltd. and M/s. Dart Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the appellant have been able to make out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Hence the requirement of pre-deposit of demand of duty, interest thereon and penalty by the Appellant company and the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty by Shri Gopal Krishan Gupta, Director is waived for hearing of the appeals and recovery thereof is stayed till disposal of the appeal. 7. The stay applications are allowed. 8. Appeals be listed in due course.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1003
When the show cause notice contains detailed narration of events apparently leading to the conclusion of intention to evade payment of duty, whether mere non-invocation of specific/provision to Section 11A will vitiate the show cause notice for purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944?
-
2012 (12) TMI 999
Restoration of appeal - Waiver of pre deposit - Appeal dismissed for non compliance with pre deposit order - Application for withdrawal of appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 996
Waiver and stay of penalty - consideration received in the form of land by the assessee from the service recipients (land owners) - whether twin houses and villas are also to be considered as a residential complex in view of the expression building or buildings used in the definition of residential complex?
Held that: - the appellant, indeed, paid service tax in respect of 62 houses (22 villas and 40 twin houses) constructed in the same premises. Those villas and twin houses were also constructed and given to individual buyers. However, the aforesaid issue is relevant to the said houses also. As the appellant paid service tax in respect of those constructions, we shudder to think how they can resist the present demand on merits - we are inclined to ask for a reasonable amount of predeposit from the appellants - there shall be waiver and stay in respect of the penalty imposed on the appellants on compliance - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellants.
-
2012 (12) TMI 990
... ...
... ... ..... se,. New Delhi. v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal reported in 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), noncompliance will not entail benefits of the said Notification. According to us, in order to be entitled to the benefits under the sad Notification, it was a mandatory requirement of the appellant to exercise its option in writing before effecting the first clearance, in order to enable the departmental authorities to ascertain, whether, in fact, appellant is eligible to the benefits under the said Notification. That having not been done, we are of the view that there was nothing wrong on the part of the department in not allowing the appellant the benefits of the said Notification. 2. We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.
-
2012 (12) TMI 989
... ...
... ... ..... as already been made. 3. Issue notice returnable on 5122012. Respondents are prevented from making any further coercive recovery pursuant to the order of the Commissioner dated 2472012 from the petitioners. Direct Service is permitted.” The above order is self-speaking. The case, in our opinion, is such where the recovery pursuant to the appellate order of the Commissioner should not be permitted at least till the revisions petitions are decided by the Government. Ordered accordingly. In view of the facts emerging from the record, it would not be necessary to call for a detailed reply. Particularly when we are limiting the interim protection till the revision petition is decided, no further reasons are required to be given. It is, however, clarified that it would be open for the revisional authority to expedite the final disposal of the revision petitions for which the petitioners shall cooperate. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 987
... ...
... ... ..... erial supplier to deliver at the premises of job worker. The job worker had sent the final products after payment of duty, to the lessor unit. The job worker however misplaced duplicate copies of invoices and sent the same to the lessor unit after tracing out the same. Therefore the lessor unit has given them to the respondents to avail credit. Accordingly, the respondents had taken credit. Even though the respondents have taken credit after 1-4-2003 on the invoices relating to the lessor unit, the same should be treated as lying as unutilized credit in account of lessor unit as per Rule 8 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002; and that the non-stipulation of this quantum discovered later was only a technical lapse which would not entitle them to avail the said credit. The Tribunal agreed that in fact there was a Cenvat credit to the account of the respondent-assessee occasioned by the transfer of the unit. No question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (12) TMI 986
... ...
... ... ..... 1091 2001 (136) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. - Del.) , which totally deals with duty liability of processed fabrics and does not appear to be applicable to the facts of the case? 2. Both sides agree that the issue raised in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is covered by a decision reported in Commissioner of C. Ex., Ponndicherry v. Sunco Rubbers Ltd., reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T 27 (Madras) wherein the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue. 3. In the circumstances, following the above-said decision, the questions of law are answered against the Revenue C.M.A. No. 3557 of 2005 is rejected. No costs.
........
|
