|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 189 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 1185 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s eligible to avail and utilize Cenvat credit on the basis of the documents which are not prescribed under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? (iii) Whether Cenvat credit be allowed on the basis of documents which do not contain the statutory information as per the provisions of Rule 4A(2) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994?” The affidavit of service of Shri Aslam Hassan, Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-V, Ghaziabad has been filed stating that the copy of the petition along with annexures was served on the respondents on 12-7-2012. No one has put in appearance for the respondent. Let notice be sent to the respondent fixing 24th September, 2012 as date for hearing. Steps may be taken within three weeks. Until further orders, the proceedings in pursuance of the order of the remand dated 15-2-2012 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/731/2011-EX(DB), E/S/874/2011-EX shall remain stayed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1134 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be restored to the file of CESTAT for fresh decision on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24th August, 2009 is quashed and set aside and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1120 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shall have to be undertaken by the respondents. 33.We therefore, direct the respondents to refund the excess octroi collected from the petitioners, however, only after examining the question of unjust enrichment. For such purpose, the petitioners shall approach the Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Surat Municipal Corporation within four weeks from today, producing necessary materials showing whether or not burden of excess octroi was passed on to consumer or third party? After verifying of such details, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Surat shall grant necessary refund to the petitioners to the extent the same is available. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of representation. Refund to the extent found payable shall carry simple interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of collection till payment as provided by the Supreme Court. 34.Petitions are disposed of. Rule made absolute to above extent with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1118 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s in paragraph 5 of the said order, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit ₹ 25 Lacs (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) with the department within a period of 12 weeks instead of ₹ 55 Lacs (Rupees Fifty Five Lacs Only). The said mistake be corrected in the order dated 2.7.2012. Order accordingly. The note for speaking to minutes stands disposed of.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1108 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n of India & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 292 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 2012 (27) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) , the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1107 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... law many appeals have been remanded to grant fair opportunity to the assessees to lead their defence in the light of following four judgements i) 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur; ii) 2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C.) CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd.; iii) 2011 (270) ELT 465 (S.C.) Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi-III; iv) 2011 (271) ELT 360 (Kar.) CCE, Mysore vs. ICL Sugar Ltd. 2. In view of the above, present assessee should also get the same benefit of readjudication in the light of aforesaid decisions. 3. Revenue agrees to the proposal. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for re-adjudication afresh granting fair opportunity of hearing on merit as well as on time bar aspect in the light of law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. 4. Since the assessees appeal is remanded Revenues appeal is also remanded to the same original authority for afresh decision since the base of the decision itself is disturbed by aforesaid order.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1090 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Refund of amount of duty paid which was not liable to be paid - rejection on the ground of Time Limitation - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- It is not in dispute that three refund claims with which we are concerned, were filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 11B of the Act. That being the position, in our opinion, the Departmental Authorities committed no error in rejecting such refund claims.
Merely, because the incidence of duty was not passed on to the consumer, cannot be the sole ground on which Refund Applications must be allowed.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1088 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tyre Manufacturers Assn. v. Designated Authority reported in 2011 (263) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) in context of imposition of anti-dumping duty, held that when personal hearing was granted by the previous designated authority, the final decision could not have been taken by his successor without fresh hearing. However, such decision was rendered in the background of statutory provision for deciding imposition of anti-dumping duty. In the present case, we find that Commissioner who had succeeded the earlier Commissioner had taken into account the representation of the petitioner contained in the appeal memo and taken a decision. We are doubtful whether the petitioner had a right of personal hearing as a matter of course. Be that as it may, only on such ground we are not inclined to remand the proceedings at this distant point of time when we find that the petitioner has not made out a case for interference. 20. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1080 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... er liquor arising in the manufacture of gelatin is a final product. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, if Rule 57CC was not applicable at the time of clearance of waste mother liquor, then Rule 57CC would not apply at the time of clearance of the exempt phosphoryl A and B manufactured out of waste mother liquor. 7. Otherwise also, we find that show cause notice issued in this case is defective inasmuch as neither of the show cause notices indicate as to which are the input and input services used which have resulted in the generation of press-mud which was converted into bio-compost. Thus, going by the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we find merit in these appeals and we are of the view that impugned orders are not sustainable. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 5. In view of the above decision, the impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of dues and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1068 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l as the relevant enclosures which show that goods have been exported and cartons supplied by them have been used for the purpose. Further, we also note that Tribunal in the case of Vadapalani Press had discussed the Circular issued by the Board from time-to-time in detail. We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the reason adopted by the Tribunal in Vadapalani Press case in coming to the conclusion in favourt of the appellants in that case and accordingly, we allow the appeal filed by the appellants with consequential relief.” 7. In light of foregoing reasons, the Tribunal has not committed any error in allowing the appeal of the assessee. It is rightly held that requirements of the circular were substantively complied with. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and it is held that the respondent-assesse is rightly held entitled to claim exemption. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1051 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... tem) and bagasse. Thus, in our considered view, the amendment in Finance Act, cited by Shri Nagesh Pathak, AR and the Board Circular would not make any difference in the facts and, circumstances of the case. Moreover, neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order in appeal mentions as to which common CENVAT credit availed inputs have been used in manufacture of sugar and molasses (dutiable final products) and bagasse (exempted final product). Since Bagasse emerges at sugarcane crushing stage, there is no possibility of any input-chemicals etc. having been used at that stage. Accordingly, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal and station applications are allowed. 4. We find no reason to take contrary view. As the issue involved in the present case is already decided by the above mentioned decisions hence, the impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 1030 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... mmissioner (Appeals) for dispensing with the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied under the first proviso, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall, where it is possible to do so, decide such application within thirty days from the date of its filing.” On bare reading of above provision it is clear that when subject goods are not within the Control of Excise authority the person desirous of appealing against the impugned order is required to deposit the duty demanded with the adjudicating authority as a pre-condition of hearing of appeal unless condition of pre-deposit is dispensed with by this Tribunal. 9. In the instant case, the appellant has not applied for stay of condition of pre-deposit of duty demand and instead he has tried to mislead the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this is a case in which the appellant has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F. Accordingly, his appeal cannot be heard. Appeal is therefore, rejected.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1029 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ;We do not find any merit in this plea for the reason that Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocate has been sitting in the Court for the last 45 minutes. It appears that this is a ploy to delay the proceedings of the matters. This is our experience that in every case involving heavy amount of duty, adjournment is sought on one ground or the other. This practice is depreciated. Be that as it may, the matters are adjourned subject to cost of consolidated amount of ₹ 5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs) to be deposited by the appellants with the concerned Commissionerate. 4. List on 12-9-2012.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1026 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tribunal. The order, reported in 2003 (55) RLT 302 (M/s. Aditya Trading Co. v. CCE, Meerut), is binding on the Revenue. Shri R.C. Shukla informs the Court that reference against the previous order being Central Excise Reference Application No. 17 of 2003 (CCE v. Aditya Trading Co.) was dismissed by the Court on 7-8-2007. In view of the confirmation of the earlier order, we do not find that order of the Tribunal requires any interference. The Central Excise Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1005 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT credit - common inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable as well as exempt goods - Held that: - paragraph 3.7 in Chapter 5 of the CBEC's Central Excise Manuel (sic) states that CENVAT credit is also admissible in respect of amounts of inputs contained in any of the waste, residue or by-product. It further states that the basic idea is that CENVAT credit is admissible so long as the inputs are used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products - appeal allowed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 986 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... lear that in these cases goods were exported outside India during the period after 3-6-2004 when the provision of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) as amended vide Notification 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-2004 were in force. The amending Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.) requires that goods manufactured or processed using excisable goods so procured without payment of duty under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) shall be exported under bond, in terms of Rule 19(1) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. After issuance of Notification No. 10/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 2-6-2004, there is no option to export goods under claim of rebate of duty in such cases. Therefore, Government holds that original authority had rightly denied the rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 11. Therefore, Government sets aside the impugned orders-in-appeal and restores the impugned orders-in-original. The revision applications succeed in terms of above. 12. So ordered.
-
2012 (8) TMI 948 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pecial Excise duty paid on inputs which were availed prior to 28.2.1993 could be utilized, by a subsequent circular it was clarified that the aforesaid credit could be utilized upto 31.3.1994. Admittedly, the appellant has sought to avail the credit after 31.3.1994. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the decision of the CESTAT in holding that the assessee could not have utilized the special excise duty credit after 31.3.1994. 3. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 942 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... as subsequent to the decision in the case of GSFC but also in the case of GNFC, Apex Court had considered the relevant provisions of the law, applied them to the facts which are similar to the case of GSFC and came to the conclusion and therefore the ratio decidendi in that case would be definitely applicable to the present case. 21. In fact the ld. counsel had also relied upon the decision in the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. - 1997 (90) ELT 271 (S.C.) to support his submission that a decision in the case of the appellant has to be preferred to a decision in the case of another assessee. We feel that in view of the discussion above, where we have analysed the facts and circumstances and the legal provisions, the decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to deal with this issue. 22. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and reject the same. (Operative portion pronounced in the Court on)
-
2012 (8) TMI 939 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... als. 4. The Ld. AR appearing for the revenue fairly concedes and submits that the issue has already settled by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, after dispensing with the pre-deposit of dues adjudged, I take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 6. Rule 2 (l) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, defines input service as service which is used in or in relation to the activities of business of manufacture. The Ho’ble High Court of Karnataka, in Stanzen Toyotetsu India cited supra and Bell Ceramics Ltd. case reported in 2012 (25) STR 428 (Kar), has held that rent-a-cab service is an eligible input service and is integrally connected with the activity of manufacture. The ratio of these judgments squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, I allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. Stay application is also disposed of. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (8) TMI 934 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 00/- arising out of OIO No. 10-32/Commr./2009. Mr. Parikh, learned counsel for the department today produces before us a copy of letter dated 3.8.2012 written by Dy. Commissioner, Rajkot wherein it has been mentioned that tax appeal no. 1441/2010 to 1455/10 and 1467/10 to 1473/2010 were decided by this Court and the judgment of the Tribunal has been upheld. Thus the fact recorded that “the respondent manufacturer had never reversed cenvat credit taken“was wrongly recorded at the time of admission, as this fact has been clarified in letter dated 3.8.2012 (copy of which has been produced by Mr. Parikh today). The letter produced by Mr. Parikh, appearing for the department, is taken on record and shall form part of the record of this appeal. 7. In view of the above, the question framed by the Division Bench does not require to be answered and this Tax Appeal is disposed of on the same terms and conditions, as provided by this Court in TA No. 1441/2012 on 17.03.2011.
........
|
