Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 261 to 268 of 268 Records
-
2014 (2) TMI 8
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Held that:- in terms of the provision of Rule 7 of Cenvat Credit Rules, a manufacturer receiving the inputs and taking cenvat credit on the same is required to take reasonable steps about the identity and address of the manufacturer or supply. The inputs in the present case were being received by the appellant from M/s Arvind Enterprises, a second stage dealer. It is not the Revenue case that the said second stage dealer was not in existence. An assessee cannot be expected to go beyond the supplier of the goods to find out as to from where he has received the inputs or as to whether the inputs supplied to the dealer have actually been cleared on payment of duty or not by the manufacturer. The requisition of the said rule is to be satisfied about the identity and the address of the immediate supplier i.e. M/s Arvind Enterprises - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 7
Denial of CENVAT CRedit - Reasonable stepts - Imposition of penalty - Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents by observing that the only reasons for denial of credit to the Respondent is that the dealer registration of M/s. Gaytri Traders stands revoked vide order in original - Held that:- appellants have taken the Cenvat Credit on the basis of the invoices issued by the M/s. Harsh & Company, 292, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur, who was registered with the department as second stage dealer as defined under Rule 2 (s) of the Cenvat credit Rules, 2004. As the invoice issued by second stage dealer is a prescribed document under the Rule 9 (1) (a) (iv) Cenvat credit Rules, 2004, therefore, it is clear that the appellants took the Cenvat credit on the basis of the proper documents as prescribed under the law - as assessee have taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the inputs received by them are duty paid and have known their immediate supplier, the modvat credit cannot be denied on the ground that the person supplying the goods to the dealer-supplier was either not in existence or has not paid duty on the final product - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 6
Denial of CENVAT Credit - Confiscation of goods - storage of modvatable goods in other premises - Held that:- In terms of the Board circular itself, modvatable goods can be stored outside the premises. The only requirement is the permission of the Department. Further the fact that the appellant was storing the said goods outside their walled factory for a longer period was also not being disputed by the Revenue. Merely because, on one fine morning, Revenue has considered the said practice to be wrong cannot be made a reason for seizure and subsequent confiscation of the said goods. Further, Revenue has also not disputed the said premises shown in the registration application filed by the respondent. This fact itself leads the bona fide of the assessee and strengthens their stand that the storing of modvatable goods outside the factory gate was on account of paucity of space in the factory and cannot be held to be an effort on their part to remove the goods clandestinely. The fact that the said goods having been reflected in the accounts of the security agency is also a relevant factor to be considered - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 5
Duty demand - Recovery from successor The Memorandum of notice of demand was issued by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of section 142 of custom Act for attaching the goods, land and building belonging to the appellant - Held that:- Respondent is the third successor of the land and building from where M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. operating. He is manufacturing goods which are entirely different from the goods being manufactured by M/s. Shri Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. As such, they cannot be held to be successor in business of the defaulter - mere transfer of land and building, appellants could not be consider as successor and Section 11 of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot be pressed into service to include several generation of successor. In as much as in that case, the appellant was the third owner of the land and building, Tribunal held that recovery of dues pending against the first owner cannot be made against the third owner of land and building - assessee is in any way related to M/s. Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd. or M/s. Prabhu Steels Ltd. or in any way connected with the cases wherein demand was confirmed against M/s. Purohit Steel Rolling Pvt. Ltd., I find no reason to direct recovery of the dues from the present respondent - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 4
Waiver of pre deposit - Imposition of penalty - Financial hardship - Held that:- when the stay application was called out for hearing before the Tribunal, none appeared for the petitioner. The Tribunal also records that on four earlier occasions, the petitioner had sought adjournments which is disputed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. However, we are not inclined to go into the above controversy. The fact is that on 11 November 2013, when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was not represented and it is the case of the petitioner that no notice of hearing was received by the petitioner. Thus, the earlier adjournments even if taken by the petitioner does not answer its grievance that no notice for hearing was received by it and it had no knowledge of the hearing when the stay application was heard. Moreover, the impugned order does not deal with the petitioner's stay application with regard to financial difficulties/ hardship.
if the notice of hearing has been received by him, he would have appeared before the Tribunal and produced the income tax returns for the Assessment Years 2011-12, 13 and 2013-14 which is produced before us to indicate that his income was approximately ₹ 16,000, ₹ 34,000 and ₹ 24,000 respectively for the last three years. In the above circumstances, it would be in the interests of justice if the petitioner is heard on its stay application and particularly with regard to his submission of financial difficulties/ hardship before an order is passed on his application seeking dispensation with predeposit - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 3
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- Court earlier held that the appeal is not maintanable - In view of such order of the Court as also looking at the very controversy which the appellant raised before the Tribunal, it clearly emerges that this appeal would also not be maintainable. The issue has direct relation to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment in terms of Section 35G read with Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (2) TMI 2
Claim of simultaneous benefits in alternate i.e. export without payment of duty against LUT as well as claim of rebate on payment of duty - Denial of recredit - Denial of duty drawback - Non-following of procedure export of exempted goods - Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 - Held that:- respondents have made clearance of the impugned goods to the SEZ Unit under specific UT-1 Bond No. 28/2008, dated 3-4-2008 under Drawback scheme without payment of duty under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 issued under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondents contended that they have subsequently paid the applicable duty of Rs. 487439/- vide debit entry No. 598 dated 31-3-2009 in Cenvat account with disclaimer certificate that they are not claiming Duty Drawback on the said export.
There are two export benefit schemes which are stipulated in Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules and Notification issued thereunder. According to the Rule 18 when any excisable goods are exported on payment of duty or duty is paid on materials used in manufactured goods which are exported, rebate is granted subject to condition or limitation if any fulfilment of procedure specified in concerned Notification i.e. in Notification 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-2004. Whereas as per Rule 19 excisable goods/materials can be exported without payment of duty from a factory of the producer or the manufacturer or the warehouse or any other premises subject to conditions, safeguard and procedures as specified by Notification by the Board and for this very purpose Notification 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001 is applicable.
The manufacturer/exporter is free to opt one of the Rules, which is more beneficial/suitable to him. Once anyone of the two options is exercised it attains finality and cannot be reverted back subsequently. It is very much clear that the respondents have made clearance of goods under UT-I Bond No. 28/2008, dated 3-4-2008 hence they have exercised the option to export goods under Rule 19 and in no way it was further open for him to pay duty and claim rebate thereupon. In such a situation payment of duty cannot be treated as duty. But it has to be treated simply a voluntary deposit with the Government - refund in cash of higher duty paid on export product which was not payable, is not admissible and refund of said excess paid duty/amount in Cenvat credit is appropriate. As such the excess paid amount/duty is required to be returned to the respondent in the manner in which it was paid by him initially - Following decision of M/s. Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. UOI [2008 (9) TMI 176 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of revenue.
-
2014 (2) TMI 1
Rejection of rebate claim - As per sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Boards Circular No. 29/2006-Customs, dated 27-12-2006, in case where export entitlement are to be availed, the movement of goods from the place of manufacture to the SEZ shall be on the basis of ARE-1 and bill of export - Applicant has not filed bill of export - Held that:- Benefit of rebate can be allowed to supplies made to SEZ unit/Developer/Co- developer/contractor/sub-contractor. In the instant case, the applicants claimed to have supplied goods to two entitles i.e. M/s. DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd., and M/s. Moser Baer Photo Voltaic Ltd., Greater Noida. The applicant in their grounds of revision application has claimed that in the instant case, the supplies were to DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd. for contract with DLF Limited, SEZ Developer vide letter of Approval No. F2/137/05-EPZ, dated 6-12-2006, DLF City, Gurgaon. Under such circumstances supplies made to M/s. DLF Laing O Rourke India Ltd., a contractor will be eligible for benefit of rebate claim. Government further notes that original authority did not discuss this issue in either show cause notices or in Order-in-Original. However, the applicant has elaborated the factual issue in respect of said supplies to both the parties in SEZ. Government is of opinion that the original authority may verify this aspect and if the supply in these cases is found to be in terms of provision of Rule 10 of SEZ Rules then, claim rebate may be sanctioned - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Appellant.
....
|