|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 177 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 530
Duty demand on fabrication of nitrogen/oxygen plant as it amounts to manufacture - assessee contested to grant of exemption in view of the provisions of Notification no. 67/95-CE - Held that:- As the Nitrogen/oxygen plants are assembled at the customers place i.e factory of the manufacturer the Notification no. 67/95-CE dt. 16.03.1995 provides exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of capital goods as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules manufactured in the factory and used in the factory of production if the same are used in the manufacture of excisable goods - the applicants had made out a strong case in their favour in view of the provisions of Notification no. 67/95-CE - the pre-deposit of dues are waived and recovery of the same is stayed during the pendency of the appeal
-
2012 (6) TMI 529
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit - export of goods manufactured - denial of Cenvat Credit availed towards service tax paid on air freight on ground that place of removal is the factory gate and the air freight is incurred after removal from the factory gate - Held that:- As per section 1(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the said Act extends to the whole of India. It that be so, the place of removal for the purposes of levy of excise duty has to be in India and not anywhere else. Therefore, merely because as per the terms of export contract, the goods have to be delivered at the customer's premises abroad, can it be said that the place of removal is extended to a place outside India. Therefore, air freight incurred for delivery to the buyer's premises cannot be deemed to be ‘input service'. Appellant directed to make pre-deposit of 50% of the duty adjudged within 4 weeks - Decided against assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 528
Notification No. 24/2009-CE u/s 11C - manufacture of printed cartons and catch covers - duty demand on printed catch covers bearing brand name/trade name of another person - invoking extended period of limitation - Held that:- Section 11C notification was issued in respect of similar products for the period from 1.10.1987 to 31.8.2008 clearly indicates that there was a general trade practice wherein exemption was availed in respect of packing materials bearing brand name of another person under the Small Scale Notifications. Therefore, in the case of printed catch covers also, the same belief could have been entertained bona fide - the extended period of time could not have been invoked in the instant case for confirming the duty demand - pre-deposit of Rupees Nine thousand only within stipulated time for the normal period of limitation.
-
2012 (6) TMI 527
Refund of duty - Notification No. 39/2001-C.E., dated 31-7-01 - cut-off date prescribed in the notification, for being entitled to the same is 31-12-05 i.e. the commercial production in the unit must start before 31-12-05 - Held that:- appellant had admittedly installed a new second tube mill after 31-12-05, though in the same factory, which was earlier enjoying the exemption - benefit of the notification would not be available to the appellant in as much as the object of the notification was to invite investors for promotion of the Kutch area and to complete such investments before 31-12-05 - Appeals are rejected.
-
2012 (6) TMI 526
SSI Exemption - Denial of benefit exemption - goods are manufactured with the brand name 'Universal' which belongs to M/s. Universal (India) Pvt. Ltd. - Held that:- As the casing is not traded in the market under the brand name 'Universal' and is further used in the manufacture of pre-recorded audio cassettes no infirmity in the impugned order.
-
2012 (6) TMI 495
Valuation of goods - assessee, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various cosmetics products - Revenue contended taxability of Technical Professional Products, sold only to salon for their exclusive internal in-salon use, u/s 4 instead of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on ground that they are neither intended nor offered for retail sale - Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand in respect of aforesaid - Held that:- It is found that products under Professional product Division have been divided by the assessee into two categories, namely (i) Technical Products, (ii) Retail Products. The dispute as seen from the SCN relates only to Technical Products. However, the Commissioner has proceeded on the wrong footing that the dispute relates to both the products and accordingly Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and send the matter back to Commissioner with the direction that the Commissioner shall give specific findings only with respect to Technical Professional Products having regard to the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 both pre and post 13.01.2007. The Commissioner shall also give finding on limitation.
-
2012 (6) TMI 463
Remission of duty - loss of goods due of fire - Demand imposed on assumption that appellants have claimed insurance loss on goods, semi-finished goods and waste and combined due to fire whereas no duty is paid on the said goods - Held that:- Demand of duty is linked with the remission of duty. Undisputedly the application for remission of duty is not yet decided, hence, case is remanded to lower adjudicating authority to decide the issue after the disposal of the application for remission. Since case pertains to year 1986-87, Commissioner is directed to dispose of remission application within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order and lower adjudicating authority should decide the demand cum Show Cause Notice within 1 month from the date of disposal of the remission application.
-
2012 (6) TMI 462
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty of equal amount u/s 11AC - dismissal of appeal by Commissioner(Appeals) for non-compliance with the provisions of section 35F - assessee contended that CENVAT Credit has been disallowed only on the ground that their supplier which is a SEZ Unit is not required to pay duty, therefore credit is not admissible whereas no action has been taken against their supplier - Held that:- Since Commissioner(Appeals) has not decided the issues on merits. Therefore the case is remanded to Commissioner(Appeals) for deciding the issue on its merits without insisting for any further pre-deposit.
-
2012 (6) TMI 461
Cenvat credit – input received in factory – Held that:- Merely because the corporate office address is given in the invoice, cannot be made the reason to deny the credit otherwise available to the assessee. Appeals allowed
-
2012 (6) TMI 460
Cenvat credit - outward transportation of goods up to the place of their buyers - supplies made by them to their buyers of FOR destination basis – Held that:- Assessee is eligible for cenvat credit for the period prior to 1.4.2008. Appeal is allowed
-
2012 (6) TMI 459
SSI Exemption - Deemed export - Value of clearance - Whether the value of "deemed exports" has to be included in the calculation of aggregate value of clearances for the benefit of exemption in terms of SSI Notification No.1/93 – Held that:- Value of "Deemed Exports" is to be included in the calculation of aggregate value of clearances for extending the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.1/93-CE – In favor of Revenue.
Whether Deemed Exports can be equated with clearances for home-consumption or the same have to be treated as exports - "Deemed Exports" cannot be equated as "exports" for each and every purpose and, therefore, the benefits available for "deemed exports" shall be only those specifically provided under the EXIM Policy - In favor of Revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 429
Classification of Honing Machine - Revenue contended that Honing Stones are classifiable under chapter 6801.90 therefore they are not eligible for the CENVAT - period involved September, 2000 to June, 2003 - Held that:- It is undisputed that Honing Machine is classifiable under chapter sub-heading 8460 which is covered under sub clause 1 of Rule 57AA of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Also, Honing Machine is used for smoothing and polishing the outer surface of ball bearing. In case the outer surface is not smoothened it would adversely effect the performance of the ball bearing. Tribunal in the case of Gotze India Ltd. vs CCE has held that Honing Stone is similar to grinding wheel in so far as the function is concerned and accordingly they allowed the CENVAT Credit on the same and which was upheld by larger Bench in the case of Rathi Udyog Ltd (2000 (5) TMI 73 (Tri)). Therefore, order of Commissioner is set aside and appeal is allowed in favor of assessee with consequential relief, if any.
-
2012 (6) TMI 428
Removal of chemical solvent/industrial chemicals without raising any central excise invoice or paying any central excise duty – assessee contested that he was unaware that central excise duty is to be paid on manufacture of the chemical solvent since only physical mixing of various inputs is involved in their case - Commissioner(Appeals) accepted the classification of the goods and set aside the demand and penalty - Held that:- At no stage the assessee informed the department regarding the activity undertaken by them for manufacture of industrial solvents - they have been filing classification declarations from time to time but have not been able to show that they have disclosed in those declarations about the activities undertaken by them- since assessee have not been able to establish that they had bona fide belief as they have not been able to show that they had approached to the department or disclosed these activities undertaken by them – Comm.(A) has not given any finding on this aspect and he has straightway drawn inference that the respondent’s CENVAT Credit is more than the duty liability of the respondent - the case is remanded to the Commissioner(Appeals) to decide the issue afresh – in favour of Revenue by way of remand.
-
2012 (6) TMI 427
Cenvat credit – Welding Electrodes used for repair and maintenance of the plant and machinery – Held that:- In the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 429 (HC), Cenvat credit is available.
-
2012 (6) TMI 426
Confiscation - redemption fine and penalty - Assembly of cars - assembly of car from the component parts amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise of the Act and excise duty is liable to be charged on such assembly – Held that:- Once a manufacturing activity is undertaken for manufacture of excisable goods, the manufacturer is required to obtain a licence from the Central Excise department under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules and if any manufacturing activity is undertaken without a licence from the department, there is a contravention of the Central Excise Rules and the excisable goods so manufactured are liable for confiscation under Ruled 173Q(1)(c) as existing at that time.
Section 11AC was not in existence at the time of this manufacturing activity undertaken by the appellant. Therefore, the absence of the condition of Section 11AC will not have any effect on the confiscation of the goods. Order of confiscation of the impugned cars and the consequential imposition of redemption fine and penalty upheld.
-
2012 (6) TMI 425
Cenvat Credit - Input service of photography - manufacture of colour picture tube - held that:- there is no scope to hold that the/photography service was (essential and inevitable as well as indispensable for manufacture of picture tube. - Credit denied - however penalty redeuced.
-
2012 (6) TMI 398
Stay petition - applicability of Rule 2A - dispute regarding duty liability in case of products ie., Air Circuit Breakers and Spares to Air Circuit Breakers in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - assessee contending that since goods were sold directly to the manufacturers, the same has to be treated as industrial consumers - Held that:- Since matter stands remanded to the original authority by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-quantification of duty amount, the appellants are at liberty to raise the above legal points before the original adjudicating authority, we also find that upholding of penalty amount, but having corrected the demand figures before the Commissioner (Appeals) is not fair. As such the issue on penalty is also kept open to be decided by the Assistant Commissioner, to whom the proceedings already stand remanded. All the stay petitions and appeals get disposed of in the above manner.
-
2012 (6) TMI 397
Reversal of the cenvat credit - the appellants had removed capital goods on which credit had been taken to another unit of the same company – Held that:- As this is a case where if the unit were to reverse the cenvat credit in its entirety also, the credit would have been taken in the other unit and therefore the situation was entirely revenue-neutral – assessee’s submission that the other unit was not making entire payment from cenvat credit alone thus the revenue neutrality situation would exist - there were no decisions during the relevant time giving the logic for payment of cenvat credit on the basis of depreciated value - when a transaction value is available, cenvat credit reversal has to be on the basis of transactional value even prior to the amendment - it cannot be said that there was suppression of fact or mis-declaration with intention to evade duty, thus confirmation of the demand cannot be sustained - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 396
Unjust enrichment - rejection of refund claim for want of documents showing that there was no unjust enrichment - appellant submitted refund claim on the ground that that they had passed on cash discount and performance based discount by issuing credit notes half yearly to their dealers - Held that:- Since, appellants have not produced any evidence in the form of Chartered Accountant statement or balance sheet, other than making a statement that they have passed on discounts and discounts includes the element of excise duty also, to show that there is no unjust enrichment, hence appellant's plea stands rejected.
-
2012 (6) TMI 395
Recovery of cenvat credit availed on shortages in quantity received in the factory of the appellant as the actual quantity received was less than what was indicated in the invoices – appellant’s claim that such shortages have taken place because of evaporation has to be accepted and he has allowed cenvat credit in all cases, where the shortage was less than 2% - Held that:- As Commissioner (Appeals) himself has observed while taking a view that cenvat credit has to be reversed only in cases where short receipt is more than 2% as there does not seem to be any intention to evade duty as shortage happened due to evaporation or different methods of weighing no point of levying duty demand - when there is a clear observation that there is no intention to evade duty, extended period of limitation could not have been invoked and Commissioner has rightly not imposed penalty – as the total amount involved in this case is less than Rs. 50,000/- the Tribunal need not to entertain the appeal -impugned order is set-aside and appeal is allowed – in favour of assessee.
|
