|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 71 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 698
... ...
... ... ..... e parties on the question of interim stay, we direct that on appellants’ depositing with the Department 25% of the penalty imposed each on the Firm and its partner under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and furnishing a solvent security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner concerned for the balance 75% of the amount of penalty under the said Section, within four weeks from today, no coercive steps shall be taken for the recovery of the balance penalty amount.
-
2012 (3) TMI 653
... ...
... ... ..... It was agreed by the petitioner through their learned Counsel that they will deposit ₹ 12 lakhs by eight weeks from date. On deposit of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 12 lakhs, the Tribunal is directed to hear out the matter within eight weeks from the date of the said deposit. In case the deposit is not made within the aforesaid time, then the Tribunal will take appropriate steps in that regard. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2012 (3) TMI 637
... ...
... ... ..... or Respondent(s) ORDER Issue notice in the application seeking condonation of delay as well as in the special leave petition. Tag with C.A. No. 10612 of 2011.
-
2012 (3) TMI 624
... ...
... ... ..... the same building in which the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) is situated. In the ordinary course, the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise ought to have forwarded the appeal paper book to the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) immediately. The delay on the part of the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to forward the appeal paperbook to the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) cannot be attributed to the assessee so as to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as time barred. 8. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 7th May 2010 and the order passed by the CESTAT dated 16th September 2011 are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for decision on merits and in accordance with law. 9. The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 606
... ...
... ... ..... not complied with the order of the Tribunal under Section 35 F of the Central Excise Act dated 10.1.2012, as such, the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 4. In the instant case, it is obvious that the appellants in the respective appeals have failed to comply with the mandate of Section 35F. Thus, the appeals filed by the appellants cannot be entertained. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance of the mandate of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
2012 (3) TMI 601
... ...
... ... ..... ) E.L.T. 112 (Tri. - Bang.). In detailed judgment, it was held that supplies to SEZ developers are to be equated with exports. The Board’s Circular issued vide F. No. 267/52/2008-CX.8 dated 7/1/2009, relied upon by the learned SDR was also considered by the Tribunal in the said decision of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad (supra). As such, we are of the view that the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the above referred three judgments and nothing more is required to be addressed by either side. No contrary judgment has been brought to our notice. As such, we deem it fit to dispose of the appeal itself at this interim stage. 5. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we, after dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. 6. Stay petition as also appeal get dispose of in above manner. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2012 (3) TMI 524
... ...
... ... ..... there is no finding of clandestine removal and intention to evade duty? (ii) Whether the CESTAT was right in upholding the contention of Commissioner (Appeals) that there is nothing on record to show that the goods were not entered in RG-1 with an intention to remove the same clandestinely?
-
2012 (3) TMI 461
... ...
... ... ..... , the Apex Court has ordered for waiver of penalty in such cases in Civil Appeal No.1862 of 2006, 1308 and 4169 of 2008 and Civil Appeal No. 5553 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4663 of 2009) decided on 17-8-2009 2009 (240) E.L.T. 661 (S.C.) . In the circumstances, we direct let the appellant deposit the duty and interest, if not deposited so far, within a period of one month. Subject to aforesaid deposit, the penalty part shall remain stayed. Stay application No. 3955/2011 is hereby disposed of.
-
2012 (3) TMI 457
Refund of CENVAT Credit – duty paid on input used in manufacture of exempted goods exported - Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - Export of service.
-
2012 (3) TMI 455
Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6(5) of the CCR, 2004 - Held that: - the appellants had themselves taken a ground in their appeal that they are entitled for credit of the part of the amount reversed earlier, they cannot now take recredit of the same without a specific relief having been granted to them in this regard by the Tribunal - The right course of action for the appellants is to seek redressal in the appropriate higher judicial forum, if they are aggrieved by the earlier order of the Tribunal, which according to them has not granted them specific relief which they had sought in their grounds of appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2012 (3) TMI 449
... ...
... ... ..... does not apply to the facts of the present case ? c) Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the credit obtained in April 2003 was reversed on 542003 by the assessee whereas factually the credit was obtained by the assessee for the period 4-3-2002 to 4-4-2003 and the same reversed only on detecting by the department? 2. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills reported in 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), counsel for the parties state that the impugned order dated 22nd July 2005 passed by the CESTAT be quashed and set aside and the matter be restored to the file of the CESTAT for fresh consideration. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22nd July 2005 is quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the CESTAT for deciding afresh in accordance with law. All contentions of both the parties are kept open. 4. The appeal is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 440
... ...
... ... ..... ns cited by the learned counsel, we note that neither cement nor structural items used in the manner stated above had arisen for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in those cases. The learned counsel has also referred to certain stay orders passed by this Bench viz., Stay Order No. 1123/2009 and Stay Order No. 954/2009, both of which, having been passed prior to the decision in Vandana Global case, are not relevant. 7. We have found no Prima facie case for the appellant and therefore they have to make a reasonable pre-deposit. Apparently, as the entire demand is within the normal period and there is no plea of financial hardships supported by evidence, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 2.50 Crores towards the impugned demand of duty within six weeks and report to the Assistant Registrar on 27.6.2012. Assistant Registrar to report on the appellant and the balance amount of duty and interest thereon. Pronounced and dictated in open Court.
-
2012 (3) TMI 439
... ...
... ... ..... he Union of India & Ors.), set aside the similar order and issued direction to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi to pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner of that writ petition. Learned counsel for the revenue is not in a position to dispute this position that before passing any order on the application for waiver of pre-deposit, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the appellant by the Appellate Authority. In view of the above reasons, the order dated 17.02.2012 is set aside with a direction to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the application of waiver of pre-deposit submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate order. It is expected that the Appellate Authority shall hear and decide the application for waiver of pre-deposit within a period of one month after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-appellant by fixing a date. This writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 436
... ...
... ... ..... make out a prima facie case for total waiver of predeposit of duty and penalty. Also no financial hardship has been pleaded by the Applicant. Keeping in view the principle of law governing the exercise of discretion in disposing of the Applications filed under Section 35F, by the Hon ble Apex Court and High Courts and also the interest of revenue in mind, we direct the Applicant to deposit 25 of the amount of duty involved within a period of 8 weeks from today. On deposit of the said amount, the balance amount of duty and the entire amount of penalty imposed on the Applicant company and the personal penalty imposed on the second Applicant who is the Authorised Signatory of the Applicant company, stand waived and recovery thereof, stayed during pendency of the Appeals. Failure to deposit of the said amount would result in dismissal of the Appeals without further notice. Compliance to be reported on 21.05.2012. Operative part of the Order pronounced in the court on 14.03.2012.
-
2012 (3) TMI 431
Demand of duty with interest and penalty - withdrawal of facility to pay duty on fortnightly basis - Held that: - by an order dated 4/12/2002, the assessee’s facility to pay duty on fortnightly basis was withdrawn and the assessee was directed to pay duty on each consignment basis. Admittedly, the assessee has not challenged the said order dated 4/12/2002 and in gross violation of the aforesaid order continued to pay excise duty on fortnightly basis by debiting the CENVAT Credit in the RG 23 and PLA accounts - the assessee has neither challenged the order withdrawing the facility to pay duty on fortnightly basis nor paid duty on each consignment basis.
No fault can be found with the decision of the Tribunal in confirming the orders passed by the authorities below - appeal dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 427
... ...
... ... ..... thin a month from today. Even if the petitioner is not present on the next date fixed, the Tribunal will dispose of the same on merit in accordance with law. Although, the respondent prayed for variation of the interim relief, by which we restored the status quo which continued during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, in view of our order that the Tribunal acted without jurisdiction, we do not find any reason to modify the earlier order which was subsisting during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal. Over and above, the Revenue did not challenge the interim order that was passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the appeal. The Special Civil Application is, thus, disposed of with the above directions. We make it clear that we have not otherwise gone into the merits. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both the parties will approach the Tribunal on 10th April 2012 for fixing a date of hearing of the appeal. Direct service is permitted.
-
2012 (3) TMI 416
... ...
... ... ..... 3 of the Cenvat Credit Rules and consequently, is not entitled to place reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Lloyds Steel Industries, referred supra. However,, in, the event the factual, aspect as pointed out now by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is considered, the assessee is entitled to make payment of excise duty on monthly basis and that right was available for the period in question. That apart, the assessee had paid the excise duty though belatedly pursuant to the demand made lay the department. The above vital factors were not brought to our notice and therefore, our order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and requires review. 6. In that view of the matter, we allow the review application and the order dated 28-10-2011 made in C.M.A. No. 1324 of 2011 is reviewed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed for the above reason and the order of the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs.
-
2012 (3) TMI 415
Refund - Limitation - Protest - Payment of duty under protest - 100% E.O.U. - benefit of exemption Notification No. 123/81, dated 2-6-81 - Application was returned back with directions to file the claim in a prescribed form.
-
2012 (3) TMI 414
... ...
... ... ..... any substantial question of law. It is only a question of fact. That apart, we find that both the adjudicating authority as well as the Tribunal have concurrently come to the conclusion that the goods in respect of 10 consignments were not of prime quality but were seconds/rejects. Nothing has been shown to us to come to a conclusion that the findings of the Tribunal are perverse in any manner. 10. We may note that there is no chemical examiner’s report to show that the goods were of prime quality and not seconds/rejects. We may also note that in the connected case an expert opinion was sought from M/s. Bakelite Hylam Limited which, indicated that on a visual inspection, the goods were sub-standard and that they were not of prime quality. 11. Accordingly, we dismiss this Central Excise Appeal with costs of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid by the Revenue to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of four weeks.
-
2012 (3) TMI 405
... ...
... ... ..... to show cause notice dated 8-11-2006, is barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944? (c) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944? 2. Mr. Jetly waives service for the respondent. 3. Place the matter for hearing after 2 weeks. The enforcement of the interest on penalty is stayed till then.
|
