|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 247 Records
-
2013 (9) TMI 910 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest from the Date of Deposit on Delayed Refund - Whether the pre-deposit made as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeals under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was, on the assessee being ultimately successful, refundable to the assessee with interest – Held that:- The said point is concluded by a judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad versus I.T.C Ltd[2004 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - the Central Board of Excise & Customs has also issued a circular bearing No.802/35/2004-CX, dated 8th December 2004 allowing payment of interest on delayed refund of amount of pre-deposit - there was no error in the order of the Tribunal refusing to grant interest from the date of deposit - The points raised in the appeal are decided against the appellant – Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 909 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Condonation of Delay – Delay of 8 Years – Held that:- It does not explain the steps taken within said period of 8 years - The only reason pleaded in the application is that there was litigation between the applicant and the bank - Reason disclosed to us is of fire breaking out in industry in 1997 - Both the events are much before the directions to deposit 25% of total amount - The steps taken after that direction to comply with it are not pleaded anywhere - Facts show that after eight years suddenly on one day application has been filed before the CESTAT – There was no perversity or jurisdictional error - No substantial question of law arises in this appeal – Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 908 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Classification of Goods - manufacturing of stainless steel paddy parboiling and drier plant – Revenue was of the view that the goods attract the excise duty and are not exempted from the duty, as these goods fall in CET Heading 8419 and not 8437 - What should be the arrangement made in the interregnum, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not permitted to clear the goods without payment of excise duty - Held that:- The respondents are not permitting the petitioner to clear the goods without payment of excise duty, the respondents should issue show cause notice and conclude the proceedings at the earliest - Further, there should be some condition imposed upon the petitioner for clearing the goods in the interregnum – The respondents shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner - the respondents shall take decision on the show cause notice and pass final speaking orders within one month thereafter – in the interregnum, the petitioner shall be entitled to clear the goods without payment of duty in cash, instead the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of duty so that in case the matter is decided against the petitioner, the respondents are in a position to encash the said amount.
-
2013 (9) TMI 907 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Unaccounted Inputs - Whether the Tribunal was correct in restricting the demand to correspond to the production of final products that was possible from unaccounted inputs demonstrated to be received by the respondent – Held that:- Once the Tribunal had maintained the order of duty, production of final products from the unaccounted inputs demonstrated to be received on the basis of show cause notice served by the Revenue – that question does not arises for consideration – only a question of fact.
Benefit of Cum duty Price - Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in allowing benefit of cumduty price when this benefit stands already given at the time of working out of duty demand at the time of issue of Show Cause Notice – Held that:- The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon proper appreciation of facts and do not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration by this Court – Appeal rejected – Decided against the revenue.
-
2013 (9) TMI 906 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Claim of Rebate of Duty under Rule 18 - Export of goods - proof of export - Held that:- The production of original and the duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form duly endorsed by the Officer of the Customs is prima-facie proof of the fact that the goods have been exported - Even if the documents are produced, the adjudicating authority can still come to the conclusion that the goods were not exported - On the other hand, if the documents such as original or the duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form is not produced, the adjudicating authority can still come to the conclusion that the goods were in fact exported - The Central Excise Officer has to record a satisfaction that the claim is in order - It is question of fact as to whether the claim is genuine or not - Such satisfaction can be recorded even in the absence of original/duplicate copy of ARE-1 Form - The express language of the notification is the recording of the satisfaction of the Central Excise Officer that the claim is in order so as to sanction the rebate either in whole or in part.
Such exercise has not been undertaken by the Adjudicating Officer or any of the authorities under the Act, therefore the orders passed was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to record a satisfaction to the effect whether the claim of the petitioner for rebate is in order or not – Decided in favour of Petitoner.
-
2013 (9) TMI 905 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adjustment of CENVAT credit towards Pre-deposit – Held that:- The assessee had not complied with the order of this Court in letter and spirit, it cannot seek a modification of the order before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the question of adjustment of CENVAT credit towards the satisfaction of the condition on pre-deposit does not arise - Considering all the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel as regards the compliance of the order, since the fact has not been taken note of by the Tribunal, the proper course would be to set aside the order of the Tribunal and restore the appeal back to the files of the Tribunal for it to consider the claim of the appellant afresh and pass an appropriate order therein to the actual compliance of the order of this Court.
-
2013 (9) TMI 904 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Condonation of Delay – Held that:- The AR who deals with the case had gone abroad for about a month - On his return, his mother had expired - The reason shown cannot be considered as unreasonable - There does not appear to be any deliberate latches or neglect to file the appeals - the order of the Tribunal is set aside the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal – Decided in favour of Assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 903 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty u/s 11AC – abatement claimed u/s 3A towards non production under compounded levy scheme - Held that:- If a manufacturer does not produce non-alloyed hot re-rolled steel during any continuous period of not less than seven days and wishes to claim abatement under Section 3A of the Act, he has to give intimation under Rule 96ZP(2) about closure of the units - either prior to the date of closure, or on the date of closure - If the manufacturer starts production again, he is required to give intimation about the same - either prior to the date of starting production or on the date of starting production. In the present it is not denied, nor there was any material to show that the factory continued production after October, 1997 - Even if the intimation was given subsequently, unless there was some material to show that the factory had run for a period beyond those two months the penalty could not be levied.
In Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills [2009 (5) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals [1997 (8) TMI 252 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - Penalty under Section 11AC of the Act can be imposed only when conditions mentioned in Section 11AC exist - The authorities do not have discretion in fixing the penalty, and that where the penalty is impermissible, it cannot be levied equal to the duty under Section 11AC of the Act - since the Tribunal recorded the findings that the penalty itself was not leviable - The Tribunal, therefore, erred in reducing the amount of penalty.
-
2013 (9) TMI 849 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest on delayed amount - Refund claim - delay in granting refund of more than 9 years - Held that:- chart shows that different rates of interest were prescribed by the Central Government from time to time. Copy of the said chart was handed over to respondents who could not dispute it. We, therefore, hold that in view of Section 11BB, the petitioner is entitled to get interest for the delayed refund amount - Two months time is allowed to the respondents to calculate and pay the interest on the refunded amount to the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled for interest for the period 10th February, 2001 (which is three months from the date of application) to 20th August, 2010, the date on which the amount was refund - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 848 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Section 11B - Held that:- The impugned order shows that claim of the petitioner has been declined being time barred. Such question as to whether the claim is time barred or not is a question of fact - Therefore, it should be decided by the Appellate Authority in the first instance rather than to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court - Decided against assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 847 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Violation of standing order - petitioner who is serving as an Inspector Customs and Central Excise has filed the instant writ petition seeking the quashing of a departmental charge sheet dated 20.05.2011 issued by an officer of the rank of the Commissioner. - Held that:- petitioner has even responded to the charge sheet in terms of having filed a detailed reply. As on date even Inquiry Officer stands appointed. Against such factual back drop it would not be open for the petitioner to file the present writ petition which can be construed only as an attempt to scuttle the departmental proceedings at the very outset. It is not the case set up on behalf of the petitioner that the charge sheet has been issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction to issue the same. The veracity of the articles of charge raised against the petitioner can only be gone into by the Inquiry Officer upon undertaking an exercise of evaluation and appreciation of documents/evidence brought on record - Decided against petitioner.
-
2013 (9) TMI 846 - CESTAT MUMBAI
CENVAT Credit - input services - services were performed after the place of removal – Held that:- Assessee was entitled to avail input service credit on the services availed by them in the course of their business of manufacturing - appellant has availed all the services in the course of business of manufacturing - appellant was entitled to avail input service credit on the services – Following JSW Steel Ltd. vs. CCE Thane I [2012 (12) TMI 141 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] - For material handling and terminal handling etc. place of removal was the port of export.
Waiver of Pre-deposit – Interest and Penalty u/s 15(2) - The assesse had able to make out a case for 100% waiver of pre-deposit of all the dues adjudged - stay granted.
-
2013 (9) TMI 845 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Waiver of Pre- Deposit – prima facie case - undue hardship - power of appellate authority to grant stay - Held that:- From perusal of this proviso appended to Section 35F of the Act, it becomes evident that deposit of such duty or penalty as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal may be dispensed with in case of “undue hardship” to such appellant after “safeguarding the interest of the revenue” by imposing such conditions as he or it may deem fit - It, thus, transpires that waiver of pre-deposit was not a matter of right. At the same time, it was also not a concession to be doled out by the authorities as per their whims and fancies - By no means it can be a sweet wish of any statutory authority - In short, grant of waiver was to be backed by reasons keeping in view facts of each case - There cannot be any formula of general application - There was no cut and dried short cut of universal application of rule.
Relying upon Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax [2009 (3) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ] - There can be no rule of universal application in such matters and the order had to be passed keeping in view the factual scenario involved - While going through the factual matrix and the chain of events, learned counsel for the appellant had not been able to show that there was any case of “public mischief” or “grave irreparable personal injury” or there was likely to be dwarfing of citizens' faith “in the impartiality of public administration” - When no factual or legal infirmity had been found in the order by the appellant and even in proceedings no case for interference with the order was made out particularly when the Appellate Tribunal had, after going through the complete record and attending circumstances, come to a firm finding that it was not a case of complete waiver - the appellant was directed to comply with the order regarding pre-deposit – Decided against Assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 844 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Acceptance and adjudication of Appeal – Permission to File Separate Appeal – Held that:- The Commissioner (Appeals) was of the opinion that two separate appeals were required to be filed and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was considering the appeal already preferred, treating it as challenging the Order-in-Original No.62/2012-13.
Without further entering into the larger question whether Rule 6A of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 would be applicable to the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) or not, in the instant case, if the petitioner prefers separate appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) against the Order-in-Original arising out of show cause notice dated 16.11.2011 within the period of two weeks from today, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall decide the same in accordance with law and on merits along with the appeal arising out of the Order-in-Original without raising the objection with respect to the limitation.
-
2013 (9) TMI 842 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Brand name used on packing materials - SSI Exemption not deniable under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. - Exemption w.e.f. 1-10-1987 granted - Waiver of Pre-deposit - Appellant was engaged in the manufacture of plastic containers, caps, plugs which are subject to excise duty - The Department was of the view that since the appellant was clearing those goods with brand name of M/s. Dabur India Ltd. they were not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. - Held that:- Prima facie it appeared that where a manufacturer covered under SSI exemption Notification had been clearing specified goods in the nature of packing material namely printed cartons, metal containers, adhesive, PP caps, crown cork or metal labels bearing brand name of the buyer he would not be denied SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E - the denial of SSI exemption to the appellant appears to be unjustified - the appellants had been able to make out a prima facie case for waiver of condition of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty - Accordingly the stay applications were allowed and the pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty as a condition of hearing of the appeals – Decided in favor of assesse.
-
2013 (9) TMI 841 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
CENVAT credit - Cleared excisable goods - whether debit Against Served from India Scheme (SFIS) certificate, at ‘nil’ rate of duty availing exemption under Notification 34/2006-C.E would made the goods exempted goods - separate accounts of inputs used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and in the exempted goods were not maintained, the appellant was required to pay 10% of the total price of exempted goods as per Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - no such payment was made - imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 - debits made under DEPB script is equivalent to payment of duty in cash – Held that; It is nobody’s case that the functioning of SFIS certificate is different then the functioning of DEPB scheme. In DEPB scheme the exporters are issued DEPB which allow them specific amount to be utilized as customs duty, while the SFIS scheme, the service providers are issued SFIS certificate which allow them to import or procure indigenous goods without payment of duty by debiting the said script - debits made in SFIS would not amount to exemption from payment of duty - Following decision of UNIVERSAL POWER TRANSFORMER PVT. LTD. Versus C. C. E., BANGALORE [2010 (5) TMI 411 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 840 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Cenvat credit on returned goods - Rule 16 - Facility for dealing with goods requiring minor or more repair, reconditioning etc. and not for recycling their material, in which process they lose their identity in a manner that the material obtained after melting them is used partly or wholly for different set of goods afresh - Held that:- forgings are not melted at all but only re-heated and re-forged. Further the learned Consultant submits that in forging industry, there is no process involved as re-melting. As submitted by the learned Consultant, the Rule 16 provides as to how to take credit and Rule 16(2) envisages that if the process to which the rejected goods are subjected before being removed amounts to manufacture, the manufacturer shall pay duty on the goods received under sub-rule (1) and if it does not amount to manufacture, appropriate Cenvat credit has to be reversed. The learned Consultant submits that it is not the case herein that the appellant has not reversed the Cenvat credit taken. In view of this, I find that the appellant has made out prima facie case in their favour for waiver of pre-deposit and grant of stay - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 839 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Job work - declaration under form 57F(4) - goods manufactured by job worker under notification no. 214/86 was cleared by the appellants at NIL rate of duty under SSI exemption notification - Held that:- Once the Revenue took a view that the inputs could not have been sent to a job worker under Notification No. 214/86 and the process undertaken by the job worker amounted to manufacture and resulted in final products namely, re-rolled products, the duty liability would fall on the manufacturer who is a job worker in this case and not on the appellant.
Further no doubt, the steel ingots manufactured by the appellant were liable to duty as small scale exemption was not available during the relevant period. However, it has to be noted that the duty demand is on the re-rolled products and not on the steel ingots. The department should have either demanded duty on the steel ingots sent out for the job work or on the re-rolled products from the job worker. Since duty demand has been made on re-rolled products and the appellant is not a manufacturer of the same, the demand is not sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2013 (9) TMI 824 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - place of removal - Short Payment of Duty – Goods Sold to Agent’s Premises - Assesse were manufacturers of Mild Steel and stainless steel Plates and Slabs chargeable to central excise duty - Revenue was of the view that the duty was required to be paid on the price at which the goods were sold from consignment agent’s premises which would include the element of freight from the factory gate to the consignment agent’s premises, the duty was being paid on lower value and as such, the short duty paid on this account – Held that:- Prima facie, the duty had not been paid on the price at the consignment agent premises and as such, the duty demand on this count appears to be on strong footing - In terms of the provisions of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 r.w the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000, in case the goods were cleared to consignment agents premises from where the same were sold, it was the consignment agent’s premises which was to be treated as the ‘place of removal’ and accordingly, the assessable value would the price of the goods from the consignment agent’s premises at the time of record, which would include all the expenses incurred upto the consignment agents premises including the transportation expenses incurred upto that point.
Shortage of Stainless Steel Slabs – Balance Recorded – Held that:- The demand in respect of shortage of Stainless Steel Slabs and Plates vis-`-vis the balance recorded in the RG-I register - From the records, it was seen that the stock taking had been done in the presence of the appellant’s representatives and at that time, they had expressed their full satisfaction with the method adopted for determination of weight of the finished goods on the basis of the dimensions of the slabs/ plates - The appellant were recording the weight of finished goods in the RG-I register on the same basis - Prima Facie appellant’s plea cannot be accepted.
Difference between the CENVAT credit - Held that:- Imported Mild Steel Slabs and H. R. Coils, which had been cleared as such and the amount actually paid at the time of clearance which was the duty on the transaction value - Since in respect of the clearance of the cenvated items as such an amount equal to the cenvat credit actually availed was required to be paid, this demand was also on strong footing.
Difference between the Raw Materials Dispatched - Held that:- According to the department, a huge quantity of raw materials sent to the job worker was not accounted for - The appellant’s contention was that just on this basis, the allegation of clandestine removal of the finished goods cannot be made - looking to the evidence on record in support of this allegation, some conditions have to be imposed to safeguard the interest of revenue in respect of this demand.
Waiver of Pre – Deposit - Stay Application – Assessee was directed to submit pre-deposit – stay granted partly.
-
2013 (9) TMI 823 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
CENVAT credit - Duty on waste product - Whether after insertion of explanation in Section 2(d) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 10/05/2008 the Bagasse is an exempted excisable product and whether on its sale value the party is liable to pay an amount at prescribed rate in terms of Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004? - Held that:- controversy on hand is squarely covered in Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. versus Union of India [2013 (1) TMI 525 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] in favour of manufacturer of Sugar. - Decided against Revenue.
........
|
