|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 247 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 1211
... ...
... ... ..... eal is an identical to the issue which was before the bench in Appeal No. E/861/2012, in respect of the very same assessee. As the issue involved in this case is same as was in appeal wherein, we granted unconditional waiver, we find that the dismissal of the appeal by the first Appellate Authority for non-compliance is incorrect. In view of the fact that the tribunal has taken a view on the selfsame issue, granted unconditional stay, we find that the first Appellate Authority should reconsider the issue afresh, without insisting any pre-deposit. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order, remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue on merits after following the principle of natural justice. 3. The first Appellate Authority is directed to dispose of the appeal on merits without being influenced by any of the findings recorded by us in the stay order dated 23.04.2013. 4. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1203
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner/appellant. Hence these applications are dismissed for default. Consequently, the petitioner shall pre-deposit the liability as assessed by the adjudication order dated 30.12.2010 including the penalty and as confirmed by the appellate order dated 12.12.2012, within four weeks and report compliance by 14.10.2013. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the petitioner/appellant by Registry urgently.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1179
... ...
... ... ..... n the demand of Additional Excise Duty confirmed by the departmental authorities. On perusal of the entire case records, it is seen that the said Order-in-Original, wherein the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand, imposed penalties and also ordered for recovery of interest, has attained finality in the hands of Tribunal when Order No. A/1354, 1355/WZB/05/C III/SMB, dt.21.09.2005 was passed, upholding the demand of Central Excise duty and setting aside the penalties imposed. On a specific query from the Bench, ld.Counsel submits that they have not filed any application for rectification of mistake. In my view, since the issue has attained finality in the hands of the Tribunal, as regards the liability for interest on the amount of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority, I find that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant for adjustment of the amount of refund against the interest due. 4. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1176
... ...
... ... ..... authority on the ground that there were various judgments of the Tribunal, on reading of which the appellants were entitled to avail the CENVAT credit on MS beams, channels, plates, etc., under the head capital goods as they were using the same for support structures, repairs and maintenance, etc. We find that the first appellate authority has not given any findings on the plea of limitation raised by the appellant before him. In our view, appellant s contention as regards that there cannot be invocation of extended period needs to be reconsidered by the first appellate authority, in correct perspective. Accordingly, without recording any observations on the plea of the assessee-appellant, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the first appellate authority to reconsider the issue afresh, after following the principles of natural justice. 4. The stay petition and appeal disposed of as indicated hereinabove. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1149
... ...
... ... ..... erest and such mandate having been given effect by order No. 9/2011 of learned Commissioner (Appeals) dated 4/5/2011, Revenue’s appeal does not survive. Revenue agrees with this proposition. Accordingly Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1142
100% EOU - Exemption u/r 2 of Plastic Wastes (Management & Handling) Rules, 2011 - export of Pan masala, Gutkha and tobacco in multilayered plastic sachet and also in other packages containing plastic - in case of exemption from Plastic Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2011 (as amended) being granted for the export of Pan Masala, Gutkha and tobacco products in plastic packaging, the petitioner company undertakes not to sell Pan Masala, Gutkha and tobacco products in plastic packaging inside India in violation of the Plastic Rules - the said exemption shall not apply to the waste and rejects - the company shall not bring back the exported Pan Masala, Gutkha and Tobacco products in plastic packaging to India for distribution or sale - all the conditions to be complied - petition dismissed.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1134
... ...
... ... ..... as also equalized freight. Though the adjudicating authority has accepted the legal issue relating to deduction of the same, but has not granted relief to the assessee as they could not produce requisite documentary evidence to that effect. Ld. Advocate submits that they are in a position to do so now. We also find that in respect of the same party involving same dispute for the earlier period, the matter stands remanded by the Tribunal vide Final Order No.57467-57468/13-Ex dated 26.8.2013. 3. In view of above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to put forth documentary evidence in respect of their claim. Inasmuch as the assessee’s appeal stands remanded, we also remand the Revenue s appeal to the Commissioner to decide alongwith assessee’s appeal. 4. The stay petition as also appeals get disposed in the above manner. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1126
Reversal of MODVAT credit - Special Scheme - Court directed that the Modvat Credit so reversed would be considered as provisional and upon final deduction, the correct amount shall be computed. It was further directed that in case the aforesaid provisional reversal is found to be short, then the assessee/tax payer would be liable to make it good along with interest @20% per annum.
Held that: - The Chief Commissioner/Commissioner will appoint a Cost Accountant to determine the correct amount of Modvat Credit to be reversed as per the Special Scheme dated 04.01.1997 - The adjudicating authority/Commissioner will then consider the report and thereafter determine and decide the correct amount of Modvat Credit required to be reversed after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioners - as the rate of interest has already been fixed by the High Court order, the said rate of interest will not be interfered with - Petition disposed off.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1118
... ...
... ... ..... ts, Lucknow, who have confirmed in their preliminary opinion report dated 29.8.2013 that the disputed receipt entry has been subsequently inserted by overwriting over the previously existing writing. The defence taken by the department was neither raised before the Adjudicating Officer nor before the appellate authority and was thus not considered. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the declarations were filed and from which show cause notice is beyond the period of limitation. It appears that the department has caused enquiries subsequently, on the receipt of the declaration and has discovered that the entries in the receipt register were tampered and fraudulently inserted. This Court under Section 35G cannot entertain an appeal on question, which was not raised and has no factual foundation. The appeal is dismissed with liberty to the Central Excise Department to file review petition before the Tribunal to be decided on its merits.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1111
... ...
... ... ..... e item in terms of various decision of court as under (i) CCE, Bangalore-I vs. Geltech Ltd.-2012 (281) ELT 170 (Kar.) (ii) Larsen & Toubro Ltd. vs.CCE, Rajkot-2004 (173) ELT 515 (Tri.-Mum.) iii) Indo Rama Synthetics (India) Ltd. vs.CCE, Nagpur-2005 (190) ELT 431 (Tri.-Mum.) 3. Even the Board’s circular is also to the same effect. The provisions of Rule 3 (3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, invoked by the Revenue, are not applicable to the facts of the present case as this is not input which is being removed by the assessee as such. It is the sludge which gets settled at the bottom of storage tank which is considered as waste by them and removed as waste. Hon’ble Karnataka High Court’s decision in the case of CCE vs. Geltech Ltd. referred supra is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue’s appeals are accordingly rejected. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1108
Reversal of CENVAT credit - Rule 6 (3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - denial on the ground that the goods have been supplied to an SEZ developer without payment of duty - Held that: - the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd., [2013 (5) TMI 460 - CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] considered an identical issue and held that the amendment to Rule 6 (6) to include SEZ developer with effect from 31/12/2008 has retrospective effect from 2004 onwards and therefore, no reversal of credit in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of goods supplied to the SEZ developer is warranted under law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1093
... ...
... ... ..... w the favourable judgment in the case of Stanadyne Amalgamations Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai (supra) and the judgment dt.20.06.2013 passed by Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CCE Vadodara Vs M/s Diamines & Chemicals Ltd in Appeal No.E/849/2011 (supra). So far as taking of credit with respect to drawback claim related services of Chartered Accountant (credit amount of ₹ 3,28,909) is concerned, the issue is disputable and needs deeper consideration. Therefore, appellant is required to be put to some conditions. It is accordingly directed that the appellant shall deposit an amount of ₹ 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) within eight weeks and report compliance to D.R. CESTAT, by 08.11.2013. D.R. after verifying the compliance, shall put up the file before the Bench on 15.11.2013 for further orders. Subject to payment of the above deposit, there shall be a stay of recovery of remaining amounts till the disposal of appeal. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1092
... ...
... ... ..... e and the goods manufactured are cleared on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. In my view, the appellant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved as the issue involved seems to be covered by the decision of this Bench in the case of Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. in Appeal No.E/849/2011. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of appeal. 3. Registry is directed to list the appeal for disposal on 15.11.2013. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1089
CENVAT credit - MS Angles, Channels, Bars, Plates, Joists etc. - steel items used for making Gantry for EOT Crane and also for installation of conveyor for handling of material - whether the steel items, in question are eligible for Cenvat credit? - Held that: - the Tribunal in the case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I [2013 (5) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], has held that the steel items used for fabrication of Gantry rails on which the EOT cranes moves would be eligible for Cenvat credit - Since, without Gantry, the EOT crane cannot function the same has to be treated as part of the EOT crane and, hence, the steel items used for production of goods for manufacture of final products would be eligible for Cenvat credit - the steel items used for fabrication of conveyor system for handling of material would also be eligible for Cenvat credit as input - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1088
... ...
... ... ..... e entire credit, either by way of payment of 8 or by debiting the same in Cenvat credit account, we hold that the condition of notification is satisfied. 6. At this stage, ld. DR submits that the fact that whether the entire proportionate credit was reversed by the appellant that is required to be verified. We accordingly direct the original adjudicating authority to examine whether Cenvat credit reversed by the appellant is in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of final exempted goods or not. Inasmuch as the matter is being remanded for verification of above fact, the original adjudicating authority would also decide the issue of interest liability on the credit so availed and subsequently reversed in accordance with law. 7. As regard penalty, we agree with ld. Advocate that when exemption has been held to be admissible to the appellant no penalty is required to be imposed. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1067
... ...
... ... ..... refunded excise has been used for other purposes the State can be a beneficiary along with the Central Government. Mr. Datta, learned counsel, may obtain instruction within 6 (six) weeks as to how soon the said Committee can hold its meeting. List on 2nd July, 2013. The interim direction to continue till the next date.” 4. Thereafter, on 9-7-2013 in the said writ petition we had directed that an investment Appraisal Committee constituted as per the earlier notification shall meet and decide latest by 31st October, 2013 whether the investment made by the assessee are in terms of the notifications referred to or not. 5. This petition has been filed now and, if possible, the Committee shall also decide the case of the petitioner on similar lines. 6. In view of the above order, no recovery in pursuant to the demand notice shall be made from the petitioner. 7. The registry is directed to supply a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1061
... ...
... ... ..... the advocate on record on 30.08.2013, directing them to remove the defects on or before 06.09.2013. Despite this, the defects were not removed. As such, a reminder was sent to the appellant and the advocate on record on 13.09.2013 directing the appellant to remove the defects and inform Bench on 25.09.2013; not attended to. 3. Since the appeals are defective, we dismiss the same as not maintainable. (Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1053
... ...
... ... ..... ilable, valid reasons. Thereafter, should be recorded which has not been done in the present case. 4. In view of the above, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority once again, for allowing cross examination of the persons sought by the appellant. For whatever reasons the adjudicating authority is not able to comply with these directions, the reasons as to why the cross-examination of these persons is not possible should be recorded. We regret to note that in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding that cross-examination of the persons were provided to the appellants but the appellant did not avail of the opportunity. This findings of the authority is factually incorrect. As can be seen from the records produced by the Ld. Commissioner (AR) today before us, it is clear that witnesses except for the departmental officers were not made available for cross examination. Thus, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (9) TMI 1041
... ...
... ... ..... efore the tribunal and the respondent had filed cross-objections regarding classification. The tribunal has recorded finding of fact that the respondent assessee was repacking raw tobacco from bulk packs into small pouches and was selling branded unmanufactured tobacco. Once the aforesaid finding is recorded, the sequitur is that Section 11A would not be applicable because the first finding implies that there was no fraud, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provision of the Act or Rules with the intent to evade payment of duty. Thus, if appellant does not contest the factual finding as submitted, the argument based on Section 11A of the Excise Act must fail. Rate of duty dispute cannot be raised and entertained in an appeal before the High Court. The specific contention raised in relation to Section 11A has not merit and has to be rejected. With the aforesaid observations, it is held that the appeal is devoid of merit and it not entertained.
-
2013 (9) TMI 1038
... ...
... ... ..... e disputed issue that amortization cost of tools and dies supplied free of cost by their customers and is required to be added in the assessable value of their final products. Reference can be made to the following decisions - 1) Star Glass Works vs.CCE-2003 (162) ELT 367 (Tri.Mum) 2) Paradise Plastic Enterprises Ltd. vs.CCE-2004 (166) ELT 108 (Tri.) 3) CCE vs.ITV Signode (India) Ltd.-2005 (179) ELT 120 (Tri.-Bang) 4) KK Nag Ltd. vs.CCE-2003 (58) RLT 159 (Tri.-Chennai) 8. There is no need in multiplying the decisions as we are fully satisfied that there was no malafide on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. We accordingly extend the benefit of limitation to the appellant and allow the appeals with consequently relief to the appellant by setting aside the demand for the period June, 95 to June, 1998 alongwith setting aside confirmation of interest and imposition of penalties on all the three appellants. 9. All the three appeals disposed of in the above manner.
........
|
