|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 188 Records
-
2014 (10) TMI 827
Exemption Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Import of duty free machines and clearance thereof in DTA after use, Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. does not apply. Therefore all the findings of the ld. Commissioner on the issue of applicability of Notification No. 22/2003-C.E. is not relevant. In view of our above observations, this is a fit case for remand, accordingly the matter in respect of all the present appellants is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order and while passing such order, the Authority is directed to first ascertain the date of clearance of the machines from EOU to DTA so that depreciated value can be correctly determined. The Adjudicating Authority in de novo proceeding also required to ensure the correctness of the appellant’s claim regarding time and amount of payment of duty paid on said machines. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 824
Imposition of penalty - Whether the Tribunal has taken a highly technical view in dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground that they are defective and whether an opportunity needs to be granted to the appellants to cure the defect and prosecute the appeals - Held that:- Hearing the learned counsel for the parties that an opportunity needs to be granted to the appellants to cure the defects in filing the appeals so that the appeals filed by the appellants against the imposition of the penalty could be prosecuted. It is stated on behalf of the appellants that the certified copies of the orders of the Commissioner, (Appeals) were dispatched to the Tribunal by the appellants and the appellants were not aware that an objection in regard to the non-filing of the certified copy was raised in the matters. Moreover, there is reason to believe the case of the appellants that only one of the appellants was informed about the defects in filing the appeals and the other appellants were not aware of the same. In any case, since the appellants have shown their willingness to cure the defects as early as possible, it would be necessary to grant an opportunity to the appellants to cure the defects in filing the appeals. - Appeal allowed with costs - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 809
Exemption Notification No.30/2004-CE - Whether the appellants are eligible to the benefit of exemption under Sr.No.6 of the Notification No.30/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004, as amended, when the appellants are having more than one factories and also have the facilities of manufacturing POY in a factory other than the factory of the appellants where the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE, dt.09.07.2004 is being availed - Held that:- The ‘act of manufacture’ is being undertaken by the appellants factory to whom demand show cause notices are issued and each factory will make the person carrying out the activity of manufacture as the ‘manufacturer’. There is nothing in the definition of Section-2(f) to indicate that a ‘legal entity’ only has to be considered as a ‘manufacturer’. Rather each ‘assessee’ has to be treated as a manufacturer and not the entire group of companies as claimed by the Revenue. In the present proceedings also even the demands have been issued by the Revenue to the individual assessee carrying out the exempted processes and not to the head offices of the group companies as a legal entity. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the word ‘manufacturer’ used in Sr.No.6 of the Notification No.30/2004-CE has to be interpreted as a unit where the ‘act of manufacture’ is being undertaken which is the individual factory and not all the factories of a group of companies.
As appellants were filing periodical ER-1 returns claiming exemption under Notification No.6/2000-CE. As the words used in both the Notification No.30/2004-CE and Notification No.6/2000-CE are ‘in his factory’, therefore, appellants could have entertained a bonafide belief that words ‘in his factory’ used in Notification No.30/2004-CE means the ‘same factory’ and thus cannot be fastened with the tag of ‘with intent to evade duty’ for invoking extended period. Appellants obtained separate registrations for the manufacturing activity in each factory and were paying duty on POY which will definitely involve captive consumption valuation, under Rule-8/9 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules 2000, while sending POY from the factory manufacturing POY to factory undertaking texturising/draw twisting etc. In view of the above observations demands raised beyond a period of one year are also time barred. - admissibility of CENVAT Credit on duty paid on POY as on merits it is held that appellants are eligible to exemption under Notification No.30/2004-CE dt.9.7.2004 as amended - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 808
Denial of the benefit of Notification No. 06/2006 dt. 1.3.2006 amended by Notification No. 12/2012 dt. 17.3.2012 - whether the LSP and anchor rings, and tower doors can be considered to be covered under ‘wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts' which are exempted under Notification No. 6/2006 - Held that:- in case the intention of Govt. was to exempt towers and foundation and its parts, then the notification would have specifically exempted non-conventional energy systems/devices as a whole. Rather, the notification exempts only those non-conventional energy devices/systems which are specified in List-5. And list-5 mentions only wind operated electricity generator, its components and parts. A notification has to be construed by the language its uses. And the language of the present notification is clear. It does not require an extrapolated interpretation.
Assessee not been able to satisfy us that the terms wind mill (which includes tower and foundation) and wind operator electricity generator are synonymous or used interchangeably. The guidelines and the forms filed as per requirement of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy nowhere equate the two terms; in fact the Application form at Serial No. 1 (f) of the Ministry's format referred to by Ld. Counsel only refers to ‘Forged Steel Rings for manufacture of special bearings for use in wind operated electricity generators'. It does not refer to tower doors or foundation rings which are completely different items. It is our considered view that the doors, anchor rings and LSP do not fall under the phrase ‘wind operated electricity generator'.
The appellants have relied on the judgement of Pushpam Forging [2005 (7) TMI 242 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] which allowed exemption to flanges used in towers and against which order the civil appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 20.1.2006. But this decision was not on merits. On the other hand, we find that in the case of Uniflex Cables Ltd. vs. Commissioner [2011 (8) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] which is a later decision pronounced in 2011, the Supreme Court referring to the case of Nicco Corporation [2006 (3) TMI 48 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] held that the electric cables cannot be considered as parts of wind mills or any specifically designed devices.
Though we could have decided this case finally on the basis of our findings recorded above, as a matter of judicial discipline the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble President for constitution of a Larger Bench because our view is contrary to the view taken by a Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of the same assessee for a different period. - Matter referred to larger bench.
-
2014 (10) TMI 807
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - initially capital goods used for manufacturing of exempted goods only - Held that:- Capital goods had been received during period from September 2004 to August 2005 when the Cenvat credit had been taken and according to the appellant at that time, they had intention to use these goods for the manufacture of fruit pulp based soft drink (exempted goods) as well as for manufacture of aerated waters (dutiable goods) and for this reason only, they had availed capital goods Cenvat credit, while initially using the machinery only for manufacture for the exempted final product. This aspect has to be verified on the basis of records. If the appellant at the time of receipt of the capital goods during September 2004 to August 2005 period, had filed any declaration to the Department or had sent some letter to the Department intimating that they would be using this machinery for manufacture of dutiable final product (aerated waters) as well as exempted final product (the fruit pulp based soft drinks), or there is any other evidence indicating that at the time of receipt, the appellant had plans to use the machinery, in question, for manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final products [like the machinery, without any modification, being capable of manufacture of both the dutiable final products (aerated/carborated waters) as well as exempted final products (MAAZA) alongwith declaration/intimation of dual use], they would be eligible for Cenvat credit.
If there is no such evidence, it would have to be presumed that at the time of receipt, they had plans to use the capital goods, in question, only for manufacture of the fruit pulp based soft drinks (exempted final product) and it is only subsequently they decided to switch over to manufacture of dutiable final product (aerated waters) and in that event, in accordance with the Tribunal s judgment in case of Surya Roshni Ltd. (2003 (5) TMI 95 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI) and Spenta International Ltd. (2007 (8) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI), they would not be eligible for Cenvat credit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for denovo decision, keeping in view our above observations.
-
2014 (10) TMI 806
Cenvat credit - non distribution of credit by the Input service distribution in proportion to the turnover of advertisement and sales promotion service - Held that:- during the period of dispute i.e. during the period prior to 01/07/2002, there was no provision that the credit distributed by the corporate office/head office of a company as Input Service Distributor to its manufacturing units or units providing Output Service should be in-proportion to their turnover. If such a provision had been there, to the extent the sales promotion and advertisement services were used by the units exclusively engaged in the manufacture of exempted final products, the Cenvat credit would not have been distributed.
There is substance in the contention of the appellant that condition (b) is applicable in respect of service which is used in a unit exclusively engaged in manufacture of exempted final product or providing of exempted services and this provision would not be applicable to services like advertisement or publicity services which are used outside the manufacturing unit and which cannot be said to be the service used in a manufacturing unit. - stay granted.
Recovery of credit from ISD - Held that:- When much amount of service tax Cenvat credit has been distributed by the corporate office among its manufacturing units and since separate proceedings have been initiated against the manufacturing units for recovery of the credit, there is no justification for recovering the credit amount from the Input Service Distributor. Moreover, the corporate office of the appellant company as Input Service Distributor is neither a manufacturer nor an output service provider and, hence, the provisions of Rule 14 would not be applicable. In fact when the head office or corporate office of a company, is registered as Input Service Distributor (ISD) and it is alleged that credit has been wrongly taken and passed on by the ISD, the proceedings are initiated against the manufacturing units/output service providers which have taken the Cenvat credit on the basis of ISD invoices issued by the head office/corporate office as ISD. Therefore, in this case initiation of the proceedings for recovery of Cenvat credit alleged to have been wrongly passed on, against the corporate office (Input Service Distributor) and imposition of penalty on them were not called for. prima facie view that the provisions of Rule 26 (2) are not attracted to this case and, hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of penalty is also waived - stay granted.
-
2014 (10) TMI 805
Penalty u/s 11AC - Clandestine removal of goods - document evidence to prove - Held that:- officers had carried out complete physical stock taking of finished goods, and also verified the production register and tallied with physical stock and concluded there was no difference between physical stock and daily production register. This clearly shows that the officers have not found out any shortage or excess of finished goods other than what was recorded in statutory Register i.e. R.G.1. It is seen that the entire allegation in the SCN was made out only on the basis of salary file recovered from the appellant’s premises. in the case of any clandestine removal of excisable goods, it is mandatory on the part of the investigating officers to establish with corroborative evidence of the actual shortage of quantity or excess production and clearance of goods or evidence of payments received, place of delivery to whom the goods are delivered, details of recipients etc. The entire demand of duty has been arrived purely on the basis of quantity shown in salary file and the statement of Shri R.P. Lakshmana Perumal. Apparently, no other evidence has been brought on record to corroborate shortage of quantity as per salary file with daily production register.
Entire investigation has relied only on the salary file which only relates to payment of wages for each labourer. In the absence of any other documentary evidence, the quantity mentioned in the foot note cannot be taken as the total quantity produced during that week. Further, as explained above, the said quantity is not only related to finished goods but related to lap stage production. The adjudicating authority in his order had discussed the issue in detail and by relying on the Tribunal s decisions (supra) had rightly dropped the proceedings against the appellant as well as against Shri R.P Lakshmana Perumal, Managing Director of the company. Therefore, respectfully following the Tribunal s decision (supra) I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the adjudicating authority is upheld - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 804
CENVAT Credit - reversal of credit when final product become exempt after taking cenvat credit - Rule 6 (1) as well as Rule 11 (3) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that:- sub-Rule would be applicable only in the case when there is only one final product being made from one or more cenvated inputs and that final product has become exempt from duty or if there are more than one final products being made out of one or more cenvated inputs, all the final products have become exempt from duty at the same time. This Rule would not be applicable if more than one final products are being manufactured out of one or more final product and out of them only some have become fully exempt but other final products have remained dutiable. In our view, in such a situation, it would be incorrect to apply this sub-Rule and prohibit the utilization of the Cenvat credit available as on the date of the exemption for payment of the duty on the dutiable final products, as in terms of Rule 3 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the Cenvat credit can be utilized for payment of any duty of excise on any final product. Needless to say, various Rules of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, have to be read harmoniously and, therefore, Rule 11 (3) cannot be given an interpretation which is in-conflict with the provisions of Rule 3 (4).
From a perusal of Rule 11 (3) as well as 11 (2) it is clear that these two sub-Rules of Rule 11 are also in accordance with the general principles of the Cenvat credit that no Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of inputs or input services which have been used in or in relation to manufacture of the exempted final products. As observed by the Apex court in its judgment in the case of CCE, Vadodara vs. Gujarat Narmada Fertlisers Co. Ltd. (2009 (8) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT) mentioned above, this principle is inbuilt in the very structure of the Cenvat credit scheme and Rule 6 (1) and Rule 6 (2) also merely reiterate and highlight this principle. Therefore, no Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of any inputs which have been used in or in relation to manufacture of final product.
While the provisions of Rule 11 (3) (ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 are not applicable, the availability of the Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs lying in stock and in process as on 01/03/08 would be subject to the provisions of Rule 6 and the Cenvat credit would be admissible only to the extent these inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable final product and would not be admissible in respect of the quantity of the inputs which were used in the manufacture of exempted final products. Accordingly, in respect of clearance of exempted final products, an amount equal to the Cenvat credit involved on the inputs used in the manufacture of those final products shall be payable. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 803
Waiver of pre deposit - Extension of stay order - Tribunal allowed the stay application unconditionally while dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty - Whether the Tribunal is correct in granting indefinite stay of proceedings to the recovery of Govt. dues as adjudicated by the competent authority, contrary to the time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- No doubt similar provision under Income Tax Act, 1961 or under this Act had been interpreted in favour of the revenue in the pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the revenue. In the absence of any finding that the delay was attributed to the assessee, learned counsel for the revenue was not able to demonstrate that the assessee was responsible in delaying the decision of the appeal in any manner. Further, in M/s Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited [2014 (2) TMI 1037 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and M/s J.P. Transformers, Kanpur's case (2013 (10) TMI 1194 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT), the grant of ad interim stay was not vacated but the Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. - Tribunal to make sincere efforts for expeditious disposal of the appeal preferably within six months - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 802
Classification of goods - Classification of rexin cloth under Clause 19(i) of the Tariff Act or under Clause 19(iii) - Held that:- Section11-A of the Act, as it stood then, prescribes the period of limitation, within which the Department can recover the arrears of excise duty. One year was stipulated for this purpose. Where however, the default is committed or failure of recovery was on account of acts of fraud or misrepresentation or misstatement, the prescribed limitation is five years from the date on which the amount became due. Department was disabled from recovering the difference of duty between the items that fall under Clause 19(iii) on the one hand and Clause 19(i) on the other hand only on account of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2199 of 1981. Once that writ petition ended in the form of a direction to the respondent therein to pass an order and an order was passed on 04.05.1987, affirming the original classification, the question as to whether the period deserves to be excluded in the process of reckoning limitation under - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 801
Cenvat Credit - capital goods - structural steel items viz., M.S.Plates, Angles, Channels and HR Sheets used for civil construction activity - whether M.S. Flates, Plates and Angles used as a capital goods are entitled to the benefit of modvat credit under sec.57Q - Held that:- his Court in the case of India Cements Limited [2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] applied the principles laid down in the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and held that the steel plates and M.S. Channels used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the ambit of "capital goods - credit allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2014 (10) TMI 774
Appeal against the decision of high Court - Applicant withdrawn the matter before the supreme court to pursue matter before Commissioner with an application for condonation of delay - High Court [2012 (3) TMI 326 - Delhi High Court] has held that Wire mesh manufactured by the petitioner even if sold to a poultry farmer for assembling of cages for poultry or battery of such cages cannot qualify as machinery under heading 84.36 and would be an article of iron and steel wire within the meaning of heading 7314.
-
2014 (10) TMI 764
Valuation of goods - dealers of Maruti Suzuki are charging price over and above the ex-showroom price from the ultimate customers of the vehicles - whether part of the promotional discount paid from the dealer's margin is includible in the assessable value for the purpose of payment of central excise duty or not - Held that:- it appears that the dealers have not borne their share of discount on their own accord but because of the fact that they are bound by the meticulously designed Dealership Agreement which they are bound to accept in their business interest. It would be commercially unthinkable for any dealer to remain in business without offering promotional discounts on ‘Ex-showroom Price’, while charging over and above that price in the name of ‘Handling Charges’ or by some other name. Therefore, prima facie it transpires that the discounts have been offered in connection with the sale and such discounts were a booster to the appellant to increase the sales. Further, such discounts has character of expenses on account of Advertising or Publicity, Marketing and Selling Organization Expenses, which are covered within the definition of ‘transaction value’ as provided under Section 4(3)(d) of CEA, 1944.
Invocation of extended period of limitation - The ‘handling charges’ certainly seems to have been informally fixed by the appellants as the appellant during the course of investigation admitted that the dealers do not have any association by the name of Maruti Dealers Association which means that the dealers did not have a common platform, where they could have fixed the handling charges with consensus. The appellants suppressed this fact from the department that the dealers are charging price over and above the ex-showroom price from the ultimate customers of the vehicles. Thus, Prima facie, the provisions for extended period of limitation have rightly been invoked when discount is compensated through handling charges collected by the dealers indirectly benefiting the appellant to under value the excisable goods while delivering to their dealers. prima facie view that the adjudication has force and pre-deposit is required to be directed in this case to protect interest of Revenue - stay granted partly.
-
2014 (10) TMI 763
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Credit taken on MS tanks - Held that:- By no stretch of imagination one can deny that MS Tank used in the manufacturing process is not a plant, machinery, apparatus, equipment etc. items in question were used in the erection of various machineries such as, - new additional Electrostatic Precipitator for raw mill project, additional fly ash handling system, MMD crusher etc., for the Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant. It is evident that MS Angles, MS Beams,MS Channels etc., were used in the erection of machineries it become component of the same, which are integral part of Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant. It is noted that Fly Ash handlish system is a pollution control equipment and particularly mentioned in 2(A)(A)(ii) of Rules, 2004. The allegation in the above show-cause notice that the Chapter Heading of these items were not covered under Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2004, is not sustainable, in respect of Pollution control equipments because the rule does not specify the tariff headings under which pollution control equipment should be falling. The appellant established that these items were used for erection of capital goods namely Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant, which falls under Chapter 84, as mentioned in Serial No.(i) of Rules 2(a)(A). Thus, the items in question are covered in serial No.(iii) of Rules 2(a)(A) of the Rules, CBEC has clarified that all parts, components, accessories which are to be used with capital goods in serial (i) and (ii) of Rules 2(a)(A) and classifiable under any chapter heading are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit. A plain reading of serial (iii) cannot lead to a different conclusion either.
The keyword is that such goods must be used in the factory for the manufacture of the final products and it is relatable to plant, equipment, machinery set out in Explanation (1)(a) to Sec.57Q and which is used for producing or processing any goods or bringing about any change in any substance for the manufacture of final product. The intent is wide enough to accept MS Tank as capital goods. Following decision of The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Versus M/s. India Cements Ltd. [2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 762
Condonation of delay - ground for seeking condonation of delay is that the appellant was not properly guided in the matter of preferring appeal and was also worried about the huge amount that he would be required to pay at the time of preferring the appeal - Held that:- From the facts stated in the memorandum of application, it appears that the work carried out by the appellant is mainly in the nature of labour work, as such, the case put forth by the appellant that he were not aware of the intricacies of law, and therefore, could not approach the Tribunal in time appears to be quite plausible. It appears that the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant before the appellate authority and, therefore, relied upon him to give him proper guidance. However, since no proper guidance was given till the appellant contacted the learned advocate who represents him before the Tribunal, there was a delay in preferring the appeal. In the opinion of this court, the appellant had all the reason to hold a reasonable belief that he would be given proper guidance by the Chartered Accountant who had represented him before the appellate authority - Matter restored before Tribunal - Delay condoned.
-
2014 (10) TMI 761
Condonation of delay - ground for seeking condonation of delay is that the appellant was not properly guided in the matter of preferring appeal and was also worried about the huge amount that he would be required to pay at the time of preferring the appeal - Held that:- From the facts stated in the memorandum of application, it appears that the work carried out by the appellant is mainly in the nature of labour work, as such, the case put forth by the appellant that he were not aware of the intricacies of law, and therefore, could not approach the Tribunal in time appears to be quite plausible. It appears that the appellant was represented by a Chartered Accountant before the appellate authority and, therefore, relied upon him to give him proper guidance. However, since no proper guidance was given till the appellant contacted the learned advocate who represents him before the Tribunal, there was a delay in preferring the appeal. In the opinion of this court, the appellant had all the reason to hold a reasonable belief that he would be given proper guidance by the Chartered Accountant who had represented him before the appellate authority - Matter restored before Tribunal - Delay condoned.
-
2014 (10) TMI 760
Reference application - Whether the Tribunal was correct in merely dismissing the appeal without having taken the Boards Review order into consideration - Held that:- The power conferred upon the Board under Section 35H of the Act is somewhat typical. Normally, the taxing statutes do not provide for any appeal by the Department, against the order passed by the original or assessing authority. It is only the prerogative of the assessee to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment. Thereafter, if the Department suffers any order to its detriment in appeal, it can certainly carry the matter in further appeal to the CEGAT, or such authority as may be prescribed. wherever a departmental authority is conferred with the power to reopen, or review the proceedings, under the Act to satisfy itself, it has either to confirm or modify or set aside the orders, under its consideration. Under Section 35E of the Act, the order passed in the first instance has to satisfy itself about the correctness thereof. However, if it finds that the order under its consideration is not correct, the only course left open to it, is to require an authority under the Act to prefer an appeal before the Board against such an order. Beyond that, it cannot express any view on merits. Even on close verification of grounds of Reference, hardly there exists any element of law in them - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 759
Waiver of pre deposit - Extension of stay order beyond period of 365 days - Held that:- Tribunal has noted that a waiver of pre-deposit and unconditional stay on the realisation of the adjudicated liability was granted by the Tribunal since a prima facie case was found in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has also observed that the appeal has not been disposed of only on account of the pendency of several older appeals and not on account of any delay on the part of the assessee - ends of justice would be met if the Tribunal is requested to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from date of order - Matter remanded back
-
2014 (10) TMI 758
Denial of CENVAT Credit - assessee availed the credit of CVD as paid as per the direction of settlement commission - levy of penalty would on the Managing Director and the Authorized Signatory - Held that:- Settlement Commission in its order has given a categorical finding that as the consequence of their order, the assessees are entitled to a certificate of payment of Counter Veiling duty from the Jurisdictional Commissioner or the DRI who are duty bound to issue such certificate. Consequently, the certificates issued by the DRI in consequence of the order of the Settlement Commission is perfectly legal. Further, Rule 57E is not applicable. We find that the Counter Veiling duty was paid by the assessee in August, 2002 and the certificate was issued on 6th August, 2002 by the DRI. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 came into existence with effect from 1st March, 2002 and, consequently, the Cenvat Credit Rules became applicable. We are of the opinion that Rule 57E of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not applicable in the instant case.
With regard to imposition of penalty for contravening the provision of Rule 57E(3), (4) and (5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Rule 7(1)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, the Settlement Commission granted full immunity to the assessee for levy of penalty or fine under the Act in respect of matters covered in the dispute. - contravention done the Ex-Managing Director and the Authorised Signatory was one of the dispute which was settled by the Settlement Commission and, consequently, it was no longer open to the department to issue a show cause notice for levying such penalty - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (10) TMI 757
Waiver of pre deposit - Wrong claim of SSI Exemption - Quantum of pre-deposit made - Tribunal ordered the assessee to deposit 25% of duty - Held that:- keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the appellant has already deposited a sum of ₹ 25 lacs in terms of the order dated 14.8.2014, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting for pre-deposit of the remaining amount - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
