|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 388 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1739
... ...
... ... ..... statutory condition. We find no reason to deviate from the consistent view taken by this Court on this question. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies on the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of U. M. Cables Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petitions No.3102 & 3103 of 2013 decided on 24.4.2013. We are bound by the decision of our High Court and as aforesaid since we are in agreement with the said view. Hence, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1686
... ...
... ... ..... e case of Alpha garments vs. CCE, New Delhi 1996 (86) ELT 600 (Tri)). 3. As regards the verification of goods exported, learned advocate submits that they have placed on record entire evidence in the shape of stock register as also the other statutory records indicating that the goods manufactured by them even after de-bonding are exported by them. Such documents have not been examined and looked into by the lower authorities. For the said limited purpose, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents maintained by the appellant and to find out as to whether the goods as available on the date of de-bonding were exported by the appellant. If that be so, the appellant would be entitled to refund. The above exercise would be done by the original adjudicating authority within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Pronounced in the open Court )
-
2013 (12) TMI 1671
... ...
... ... ..... ncluding the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, High Court, Mumbai, and of Hon’ble Tribunal and by not following the decision of Coordinate bench in case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE Jaipur - I 2013 (293) ELT 311 (TriDelhi) on the same issue the Hon’ble Tribunal has committed an error by ordering the pre-deposit of 50% of duty to the Appellant which results into undue hardship ? 4. So far as interim relief is concerned, the appellant, without prejudice to the rights and contentions raised by him in the appeal, shall deposit the amount equivalent to 50% of the duty amount which comes to around ₹ 2.5 Lacs, in this Court, within a period of six weeks from today. On condition of deposit of amount as specified above, we direct the tribunal to proceed with the pending appeal without insisting on predeposit of amount before the tribunal. Subject to condition as recorded above, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause ‘C’.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1632
... ...
... ... ..... appellant s favour in their own case vide Tribunal s Final Order No. A/57559-57560/2013 dated 16.8.2013 and in view of this, the Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing the Cenvat credit in respect of spares of Ventra Locomotive is also not correct. 6. Shri Amresh Jain, ld. DR defended both the orders reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit of tyres for Low Profile Dump Trucks being used in captive mines stands decided by the Tribunal s judgement in the appellant’s own case as mentioned above. Similarly the issue of eligibility for Cenvat credit of spares of Ventra Locomotives also used in capative mines stands decided in favour of the appellant by the judgement as mentioned above. No contrary judgement has been cited. In view of this, the impugned orders are set aside. The appeals are allowed. (Dictated & pronounced in open Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1608
CENVAT credit - capital goods - Sliver/combed/carded cotton falling under Ch. 5202 - whether credit would be available when this heading remained specifically excluded from the purview of capital goods under erstwhile Rule 57Q as it stood during the material time?
-
2013 (12) TMI 1601
Adjournment - seeking of time to reply affidavit - Held that: - The time prayed for is granted - List the case on 20.01.2014 - In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 shall be exempted from the operation of the Plastic Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 - decided in favor of repondents.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1593
... ...
... ... ..... e dismiss the appeals subject to result of the modification application stated to have been filed before the Apex Court and likely to reach the Bench by 03.01.2014. 2. Registry to keep note of the above, and whenever Apex Court order comes the matter should be listed in mention. Both the appeals are dismissed.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1587
... ...
... ... ..... espondent should be given an opportunity to refute the Larger Bench decision. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and remand all the matters to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh after considering the Larger Bench decision . Needless to say that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall given an opportunity of hearing to the respondents before taking a decision. All these appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1582
... ...
... ... ..... regoing para, Government finds that the applicants are not eligible to claim of rebate of duty paid 10 i.e. General Tariff Rate of Duty ignoring the effective rate of duty 4 or 5 in terms of exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended. As such Government is of considered view that rebate is admissible only to the extent of duty paid at the effective rate of duty i.e. 4 or 5 in terms of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended. 10. The amount of duty paid in excess of duty payable at effective rate of 4 or 5 as per Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. is to be treated as voluntary deposit with the Government and the excess paid amount is to be returned/adjusted in Cenvat credit account of assessee, which has already been done by original authority. Government finds no infirmity in impugned orders and therefore, upholds impugned orders-in-appeal. 11. These revision applications are thus rejected being devoid of merit. 12. So ordered.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1581
... ...
... ... ..... rmulations. Provided that in the case of a container consisting of smaller saleable packs, the retail price of such smaller pack shall also be displayed on the label of each smaller pack and such price shall not be more than the pro rata retail price of the main pack rounded off to the nearest paisa.” 7. From the above, it is clear that requirement of displaying the retail price is only for the goods intended for sale. Since, physician samples are not intended for sale, requirement to indicate the retail sale price does not exist, in the law. 8. We also note that this Tribunal has been taking a view that physician samples manufactured on principal to principal basis are required to be assessed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Central Excise Act as is evident from the various case laws quoted by ld. Counsel for the appellant.” 5. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed and that of Revenue are dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1563
... ...
... ... ..... below - "5.After hearing both sides, I find that the Notification No.67/95 makes no special exemption in respect of 'exports', perhaps, for the reason that exports are not treated as 'exempted goods'. The SEZ Act defines 'Export' to include supplies to SEZ from the Domestic Tariff Area. In the case of Dalmia Cement (supra), the Bench has taken a prima facie view that exports to SEZ will not fall under the category of 'exempted goods' and the pre-deposit was waived in that case. The aid decision has been followed in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) also. Hence, following the ratio of these two cited decisions, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit in this case also pending disposal of the appeal." 5. Following the above stay order of the Tribunal, we waive predeposit of duty along with interest and penalty and stay its recovery till disposal of the appeal. Stay application is allowed. Dictated and pronounced in open court.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1560
... ...
... ... ..... rved in view of the stated position that the files are not traceable and the matter being very old, files may have to be reconstructed on the papers and documents submitted by the petitioner. 8. It will be open to the petitioner to submit the records and help the respondents in reconstructing the records. 9. In view of the stated position, directions in paragraph 4 of the order dated 18-9-2013 in W.P. (C). No. 396/1997 Apollo Tyres Ltd. and Anr. v. U.O.I. and Ors. and other cases, are applicable to the present case. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of directions in paragraph 4 of the order dated 18-9-2013 in W.P. (C) No. 396/1997 Apollo Tyres Ltd. (supra). However, as the records of this case are to be reconstructed and in case there is any problem or difficulty in implementing this order, the parties can approach the Court for clarification/modification etc. 10. With the above observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1558
... ...
... ... ..... s Ltd. 2000 (124) E.L.T. 229 (Tri.) to submit that interest is not liable to be paid. Ongoing through the decision, in paragraph 5, the Tribunal took notice of the fact that the show cause notice had been issued on 11-1-1995 which was prior to the date on which the provision to recover interest was brought into the Statute book under Rule 57-I. Since there was no provision of recovery of interest at the time of issue of show-cause notice and no proposal was made to demand interest, the adjudicating authority could not have confirmed interest. In this case, the show-cause notice was issued after the Rule was amended and I have already extracted the relevant provision of the Rule and have considered the implications of non-mention of interest in the show-cause notice. Therefore, the reliance on Mardia Steels decision of the Tribunal is also misplaced. In view of the above discussion, appeal has no merit and accordingly is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (12) TMI 1551
... ...
... ... ..... ered by the Board s circular No. 243/77/96 dated 3.9.96 and Tribunal s decision in the case of Mangal Textile Mills (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2003 (54) RLT 282 (Tri) . 5. Revenue, not being satisfied with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) further filed the present appeal before Tribunal. At this stage, I find that the issues are no more res integra and stand settled by various decisions of the Tribunal as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi as detailed below 1. CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Suzuki Synthetics 2008 (222) ELT 279 (Tri-Ahmd) ; 2. Delite Processors vs. CCE, NOIDA 2009 (243) ELT 731 (Tri-Del) ; and 3. Damini Printers (P) Ltd. vs. CCE, NOIDA 2005 (191) ELT 653 (Tri-Del) 6. Inasmuch as the issue is settled, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the original adjudicating authority as also by Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected. (operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court )
-
2013 (12) TMI 1540
... ...
... ... ..... nal should not be interfered by the Higher Authority and it is the aggrieved person to move before the said authority who recorded such event promptly before it erases from his memory. 7. Since the petitioners have offered to deposit the said sum of ₹ 20 lakhs to show his bona fide, this Court does not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the order of the Tribunal by which the petitioners were directed to deposit the said sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. Since the time to deposit has already lapsed, this Court, therefore, extends the time to deposit the said sum for a period of four weeks from date. 8. It is, however, made clear that the authority at the time of reconsideration, in terms of the order of the Tribunal, will also take into account the deposit of the aforesaid money and shall also make appropriate directions and orders in this regard. 9. The writ petition is disposed of on above observations. 10. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1534
... ...
... ... ..... nordinate. It is a settled legal principle that the law of limitation has not been enacted with an intention to defeat the rights of the parties. If the appellant is guilty of deliberately not filing the appeals within time for certain mala fide reasons, that would be a different matter. However, from the facts, we have seen that there is no such deliberate or mala fide intention in preferring the appeal memorandums belatedly. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have exercised discretion in the matter and condoned the delay. This is more so, because a similar issue has already been dealt with by the Tribunal and the appeal is pending and therefore, the interest of justice would have been met if the Tribunal had condoned the delay. 7. For the above reasons, these civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal, is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to number the respective appeals and proceed in accordance with law. No costs.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1522
... ...
... ... ..... n of the letter ‘R’ and letter ‘B’ referred in para 5.3 of adjudication order. Para 4.1.7 and 1.4 (d) of adjudication sufficiently indicate questionable modus operandi of the appellant. Interest of Revenue has been prejudiced. Prima facie, appellant connived with the evader with code language in accounting. Therefore appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 1 lakh (one lakh) within six weeks and make compliance on 18.2.2014. 4. Registry is directed to place copy of this order in all connected appeals at S.No.40 to 45 of the cause list today for reference of the bench. ( Dictated & pronounced in the open court )
-
2013 (12) TMI 1519
... ...
... ... ..... that admittedly coal supplier paid the duty and the appellants has availed the credit of duty PAID by the supplier. It is well settled law the payment made at the suppliers end cannot be reopened at the recipients end and recipient of the goods is entitled to the credit of duty paid by the supplier. In this regard, I took note of the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Ranbaxy Labs Ltd. 2006 (203) ELT 213 (P&H) as also in the case of V.G. Steel Industry vs. CCE 2012 (27) STR 94 (P&H) . Though there are catena of other decisions, but in view of the above declaration of law by the Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, I do not find any need to refer to all of them. 4. In view of the foregoing, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal itself with consequential relief to the appellants. 5.Stay petition as also appeal gets disposed of in the above manner. Dictated & pronounced in the open Court
-
2013 (12) TMI 1518
Denial of SSI Exemption - whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86 is available to the goods manufactured by them and whether the demand of Central Excise duty is hit by time limit specified in Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1515
CENVAT Credit – Storage of Inputs outside the factory premises - Applicability of Rule 57 (A) (B) (1) – Whether the duty having been paid on the inputs stored outside the factory premises which was received in the factory, the tribunal was not justified in not considering Rule 57 (A) (B) (1) for the purposes of CENVAT credit - Whether the principle of law i.e.,the applicability of Rule 57 (A) (B) (1) being absolutely the same - Whether the tribunal was not justified in holding that prior permission of the Commissioner was required for storing the inputs outside the factory premises when the circular not put such condition - Denial of CENVAT credit only on the procedural ground of lack of permission from the Commissioner without merits.
........
|
