|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 388 Records
-
2013 (12) TMI 1390
Wrong credit of duty paid on inputs - Held that:- The supplier has wrongly paid the duty - The recipient of any inputs have no control over the supplier regarding whether they should pay the duty under a particular heading or not - The circumstances under which the supplier paid the duty is not forthcoming as no notice has been issued to them. The officers incharge of the manufacturing unit who may receive materials from several units cannot be allowed jurisdiction to determine whether each of the suppliers have rightly paid the excise duty or not - The denial of credit to the recipient of the materials on the ground that the supplier need not have paid the duty has been made without jurisdiction - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1389
Penalty on clandestine removal of goods - Held that:- Shortage of goods admitted to have been cleared from the factory without preparing Central Excise invoices and payment of duty - During investigation no question has been asked which could reveal the knowledge or even intention on the part of the authorised signatory - Penalty on a person cannot be imposed on assumption and presumption - The department has chosen to pursue vigorously such a case without disclosing how the finding of facts by the Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1388
Classification of goods - Shunt to classified under chapter heading CETH 9030 or CETH 8533 - Held that:- Shunt is an essential part of ammeter, used for measuring current - An ammeter is incomplete without the shunt - Shunts are solely and principally used with the ammeter, for which they are calibrated - Shunts are not general purpose parts and are not having any other function except to measure the current in DC circuits, along with the ammeter - The shunt consists of copper wire which works parallel to the ammeter Copper wire is the least resistant to the electricity, and therefore a best conductor - The role of resistor is to provide resistance - If resistance is required to be provided naturally it cannot be made of copper wire - The definition of ‘shunts’ as laid down in the Concise Chemical & Technical Dictionary reads as “low resistance connected in parallel with electrical mechanism such as ammeter coils to prevent too large a flow of current through the latter.” The very words “low resistance” in para would show that while the role of the shunt is to prevent too much of a flow of current which is not done by providing resistance at all - The very fact that copper wire is used the words “low resistance connected” -As per the product description provided it cannot be considered as a resistant - Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1387
Recalling of ex-parte order of Tribunal – Held that:- The case was posted for hearing on 16-9-2010, it was the fourth occasion and the appellant had already been given adjournment three times previously - The request for further adjournment was denied - No sufficient cause was shown for the absence on 16-9-2010 either in writing or through a properly authorised Counsel – Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1347
Availment of Cenvat credit - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The container number which is indicated on the bill of entry is reflecting clearly on the transport documents i.e. on the LR issued by the transporters as having been delivered to the appellants – Relying upon COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & C. EX., VAPI Versus DNH SPINNERS [2009 (7) TMI 130 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - this correlation definitely demonstrates that appellant has received the consignment, though the bill of entry is in the name of their Head Office - there is no dispute as regards the receipt of consignment at the appellant’s factory, non-mentioning of appellant’s name in the bill of entry or endorsement by the Head Office is a curable defect – Prima facie the appellant is able to establish case in their favour – stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1346
Supply of ‘Aromatic Compounds’ to various traders – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Appellant had filed affidavit/ certificates of various traders who have categorically stated that ‘Aromatic Compounds’ purchased by them from the appellant are being sold to various small and tiny industrial units manufacturing Agarbatis etc. – Following UOI vs. Garware Nylons Limited [1996 (9) TMI 123 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the appellant had classified the product under Chapter heading 3302 on his knowledge of the product, if the department wants to reclassify the product under Chapter heading 3303, it is for the Revenue to adduce evidence to this regards - there was no evidence found which has been put forth by the Revenue for change of classification of the very same products which are cleared to the traders - Prima facie, the appellant has made case in their favour – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1345
Waiver of Pre-deposit of Interest and Penalty u/s 11AB and 11AC of Central Excise Act,1944 – Duty and interest amount already paid – Held that:- The applicants have themselves accepted the duty liability and paid the entire amount of duty without any protest - the interest on the said amount of duty is payable – the appellant directed to deposit the entire amount of interest – upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1344
Difference in the quantity of the granulated slag shown in their Annual Operational Statistical Report and the quantity shown in the monthly ER-I Return - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Prima facie, without any corroborative evidence, it would be difficult to accept the difference in the quantities of granulated slag between the two statements, were the quantity cleared without payment of duty - the Applicant is able to make out a prima-facie case for total waiver of amount – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1343
Determination of assessable value - Goods processed/manufactured on job work basis – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- Held that:- The arrangement was processing/manufacturing of goods on job work basis and the job-worked goods were to be assessed in accordance with the principles laid down in Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India 1989 (1) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Pawan Biscuits Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2000 (7) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] – the processed/manufactured goods be assessed to duty at the price at which it was sold by Applicant No.2 - the issue of limitation is a mixed question of facts and law and would be considered at the time of disposal of the Appeal - Applicant No.1 directed to deposit Rupees seventy-five as pre-deposit – upon such submission rest of the duty to be waived till the disposal – Partial stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1342
SSI Exemption - Brand Name – Mentioning of logo on the goods – Held that:- The goods R-Core Transformers manufactured are having a sticker with description "manufactured by Instruments & Electronics, Bhopal in Technical Collaboration with SEL" and also showing the logo of M/s. SEL - The fact is that the logo of SEL mentioned on the goods indicates a connection between the goods manufactured by the respondents with the Silcher Electronics Ltd. – Following COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY Versus GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD.[2005 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - in context of trade name, a name or any writing would cover the name of the company so long as it is used in relation to the product and is used for the purpose of indicating the connection in course of trade between the product and the other person - The logo indicates a connection between the M/s. SEL and the goods manufactured by the asseessee and they are not entitled to the small Scale exemption.
Extended period of limitation on interest and penalty u/s 11AC of the central excise act 1944 – Held that:- Assessee continued to use of logo of SEL up to Mar, 99 - statement given under section 14 of the Act by the partner of the respondents was not true and he suppressed the facts - The Original Authority has rightly invoked extended period and imposed the penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act – R-Core Transformers manufactured by the Respondent and which were being cleared by them by affixing the brand name and logo of their collaborator "SEL, Baroda" were not eligible for SSI exemption and extended limitation period under proviso to Section 11A(1) is applicable to the facts of this case - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1341
Application for Restoration of appeal – Clearance from the Committee on Disputes not taken – Held that:- The Board has decided not to pursue the matter and the same was also not listed before the COD for clearance at the relevant time and hence not pending –thus, the question of restoration of appeal does not arise at all - the application for Restoration of Appeal is not maintainable – Decided against Applicant.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1340
Penalty under Rule 25 (1) (d) and Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Bogus invoice issued without selling the goods – Held that:- Just because the show cause notice invoked sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 which could not be invoked, invoking of a wrong rule would not initiate, the show cause notice as the show cause notice clearly alleges that the appellant had issued a bogus invoice without supplying any material to enable his customer or fraudently avail the Cenvat credit and sought imposition of penalty for the offence – Following Vee Kay Enterprises vs. CCE2011 (3) TMI 133 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] – penalty would be attracted under Rule 25 (1) (d) as well as Rule 26(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 – Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1339
Denial of cenvat credit – goods not received on the dates when credit taken – Held that:- The goods had subsequently been received, as the goods covered by the invoice No. 62, dated 31-10-2005 on the basis of which the credit was taken on 31-10-2005, had been received on 3-11-2005 and the goods covered by the invoice Nos. 91 and 92 each dated 31-12-2005 on the basis of which Cenvat credit had been taken on 31-12-2005, had been received on 3-1-2006 - When the goods were received in the factory, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied – thus, the department can charge only the interest as irregularly taken credit – Decided against Revenue.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1338
Maintainability of Appeal – Held that:- The order was communicated to the appellants with a preamble in which the appellants were informed that an appeal against said order lies to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi - now Revenue cannot claim that no appeal can be filed against the order before the Tribunal - the demand has been confirmed on addition of pre-delivery inspection charges and also after sale service charges collected by the dealers and the issue was decided against them holding that duty is chargeable on the pre-delivery inspection charges and after sale service charges - The appellants had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for decision in the Supreme Court - To keep the matter alive on merits, the appellants have right to file an appeal before this Tribunal against the order - the request of the Revenue for non-maintainability of appeal cannot be accepted.
Waiver of Pre-deposit – Payment of Interest – Held that:- The appellants have not claimed any financial hardship and the claim for financial hardship is a determining factor for deciding the quantum of pre-deposit and not for giving time for making pre-deposit - the contention of the Revenue that since no financial hardship was claimed by the appellants, ten weeks time was not required to be given to them cannot be accepted - The appellant has undertaken to make the payment of interest payable on the confirmed duty in the time limit given by the Tribunal in the stay order.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1337
Transfer of the unutilized and accumulated cenvat credit - Inputs as well as the capital goods lying in the records – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- As per Rule 10 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is a beneficial piece of legislation allowing transfer of unutilized credit to the new assessee to whom the business stands transferred - The present assessee has undoubtedly been given central excise licence and has taken over all the liability of M/s Mound Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. - all the assets in the shape of credit of the previous manufacturer have to be transferred to the appellant - The objection raised by Revenue on technical ground cannot be appreciated in the absence of any dispute of availability of credit to the appellant – thus, pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1336
Waiver of pre-deposit - Reversal of cenvat credit availed - Held that:- appellant has paid approximately Rs. 82 lakhs as duty on the final products clear from their factory premises. This has not been denied by the adjudicating authority. If that be so, in our considered view, the discharge of duty liability by the main appellant-company would amount to reversal of cenvat credit, if any, as held by the adjudicating authority being ineligible to the appellant. Prima facie, we are convinced that the appellant has made out a case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amounts involved are allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeals - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1335
Waiver of pre-deposit of duty - Goods manufactured and cleared at nil rate of duty - Held that:- as per Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules the applicant are liable to pay 10% of price in respect of goods cleared at nil rate of duty. In the present case, the demand is in respect of chhilka etc. which is a waste product generated during the manufacture of malt and malt extract - Pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty is waived and recovery of the same is stayed till the disposal of the appeal - Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1296
Denial of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2003 – Goods to be treated as branded shoes – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The applicant had exceeded the exemption limit of Rs.100 Lakh prescribed under the Notification - the entire amount of duty for the shoes had been discharged, which has not been disputed by the Revenue - since the amount of duty involved on the goods were already paid, thus the Applicant could make out a prima facie case for total waiver of amount – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1295
Clandestine Removal of Goods – Undervaluation of tiles manufactured – Clearance made by improperly declaring the retail sale price – Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The Tribunal has been following judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat that an assessee should deposit 8% of the amount of duty confirmed - The appellant has deposited an amount which is more than 8% of the duty liability - the amount already deposited is enough to hear and dispose the appeals – Pre-deposits waived till the disposal – Stay granted.
-
2013 (12) TMI 1294
Eligibility of cenvat credit - Duty paid on MS channels, angles plates and TMT bars – Goods used in fabrication - Extended period of limitation - Waiver of Pre-deposit – Held that:- The show cause notice is dated 21.04.11 and has invoked extended period of time to seek the reversal of cenvat credit availed by the appellant on these items - the appellant had filed monthly returns with the authorities - Prima facie, the demand is hit by limitation - The arguments as regards the appellant cannot have a bonafide belief post 2008, needs to be addressed which can be done at the time of final disposal of the appeal - the appellant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the amounts – Pre-deposits stayed till the disposal – Stay granted.
........
|
