Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise 2015 2015 2015 (10) Central Excise - 2015 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Central Excise - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 1051 Records

• 2015 (10) TMI 2345
  

  Cenvat Credit - Storage of input outside the factory - Removal of goods without necessary permission under Rule 8 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 - delivery of the letter written by the Appellant has been questioned by the Department - Confiscation and penalty - Held that:- Inputs were cleared without necessary permission and without reversal of appropriate amount of CENVAT Credit as undertaken by the Appellant. As per the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, when the inputs are cleared as such from the factory premises, then equivalent amount of CENVAT Credit is required to be reversed. By not doing so, the Appellant has contravened the provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 15(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, such inputs are liable to confiscation. Accordingly, the order of confiscation made by the Adjudicating authority is proper and cannot be faulted with. - However redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating authority is reduced to ₹ 1 lakh.

  In case, the entire quantity of inputs were used in the manufacture of finished goods or cleared as such on payment of duty, then the question of imposing penalty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 15 of CENVAT Credit Rules will not arise, except for payment of interest on CENVAT involved from the date of clearance of inputs from the factory till they are used in the manufacture of finished goods or cleared as such on discharge of appropriate amount of duty.

  So far as imposition of penalties upon other Appellants is concerned, it is observed that these penalties have been imposed under Rule 26 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and not under CENVAT Credit Rules 2002. Penalties upon the other Appellants for violating CENVAT Credit Rules 2004, can only be imposed under the penal provisions of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 and not under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. Appeals filed by the other Appellants are accordingly allowed. - Decided partly in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2344
  

  Admissibility of CENVAT Credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Capital goods - Demand of Secondary and Higher Education Cess - Held that:- Issue was settled by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) ) in the year 2010. When an issue was disputable, then no intention to evade payment of duty or taking of wrong CENVAT Credit can be attributed on the part of the Appellant. Accordingly, 5 years extended period under Section 11A Proviso cannot be invoked. The demand period is from May 2009 to May 2010, whereas the Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.08.2011, which is clearly beyond the normal limitation period of 1 year and is required to be set aside. Accordingly, no penalties are imposable by the Appellant.

  So far as the admissibility of payment of Secondary and Higher Education Cess from the CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess is concerned, it is observed from the First Proviso to Rule 3(7)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 that credit of Education Cess on excisable goods and Education Cess on taxable services, can be utilized only for payment of Education Cess on finished excisable goods or payment of Education Cess on taxable service. Accordingly, the stand of the Appellant that there is no bar on utilization of Education Cess credit balance for discharging Secondary and Higher Education Cess, is not correct. The same is required to be paid by the Appellant, with the liberty of taking equivalent amount of credit in the account of Education Cess. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2343
  

  Denial of CENVAT Credit - Job work - credit was denied by the department on the ground that no duty paid clearances were made by appellant as a job worker - Held that:- When the job worker appellant was entitled to the exemption under mandate of notification, that does not alter characteristics of manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, denial of capital goods credit to the appellant is uncalled for. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2342
  

  CENVAT Credit - whether the respondent is entitled to avail cenvat credit on MS round and pig iron which has been used by them for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery or not - Held that:- issue has already been settled by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2006 (5) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN ] which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been held that any inputs used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is entitled for cenvat credit. Therefore, issue is no more res integra. - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2341
  

  Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Assessee was engaged in the manufacture of Pharmaceutical products under Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. - issue involved in this case is against the Assessee by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Indica Laboratories P Ltd vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2007 (5) TMI 19 - CESTAT,AHMEDABAD]. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that the Tribunal on the identical issue in their own case dropped the penalty as the matter was decided by the Larger Bench. - As the issue was decided by the Larger Bench, imposition of penalty is not warranted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2340
  

  Manufacture of processed knitted/crocheted cotton fabrics - Eligibility of the benefit of the Notification No 4/2002-CU dtd 1.3.2002 - Held that:- Issue is covered by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Arvind Products Ltd and Others vs CCE&ST, Ahmedabad, [2014 (11) TMI 79 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. It has been held that the reference regarding admissibility under Sr No 12 of exemption Notification No 14/2002-CE dtd 1.3.2002 has answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. The Tribunal in the case of M/s Vishal Fabrics P Ltd & others vs CCE, Ahmedabad [2015 (10) TMI 1126 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] allowed the appeal on the identical issue. - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2339
  

  CENVAT Credit on inputs - Demand confirmed without considering their defense - Held that:- There is a clear finding by the adjudicating authority that appellant has not produced the documents on the strength of which they want to avail Cenvat Credit. In these circumstances, matter needs examination at the end of adjudicating authority. Therefore, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for verification of documents on the strength of which the appellant wants to avail Cenvat Credit and thereafter pass the order after considering the documents produced by the appellant how much credit is entitled to and how much demand remains against the appellant to be confirmed. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2338
  

  Valuation of goods - whether the cost of transportation from the factory to depot will be includable in the value of the goods during the period April, 2002 to March, 2003 - Held that:- Tribunal’s order mentioned above has been upheld by the hon’ble Supreme Court vide order [2015 (4) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT]. In view of the said decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2337
  

  Benefit of input tax credit - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was no any act of fraud, collusion or suppression of facts to invoke extended period. He has found no malafide conduct of the assessee availing the benefit of input tax credit for the relevant period April 2005 to March 2006. Appellant explained this fact while filing their return on 16.11.2006 to the jurisdictional authority. Nothing is apparent from record to show that there was deliberate contravention of any of the provisions of the law. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that adjudication is barred by limitation. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2336
  

  Imposition of penalty under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Penalty on co-appellant - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of manufacturer (M/s Abhishri Packagings Pvt. Ltd) set-aside the impugned order [2013 (8) TMI 915 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] following the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Sumphony Comforts System Ltd. vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi [2013 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. - As the appeal of the manufacturer is allowed by the Tribunal and the impugned order is set-aside, imposition of penalty on the co- appellant would not be warranted. Accordingly, the penalty is set-aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2335
  

  Demand of National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) - captive consumption - Held that:- Tribunal in the appellants own case for the earlier period [2015 (6) TMI 45 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], set-aside the demand. - Following the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2334
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Held that:- when the matter was called for ascertaining compliance, neither anybody is present on behalf of the appellant nor the compliance is reported. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance with the direction of this Tribunal under provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2325
  

  Applicability of Rule 6(3)(b) - Whether just because the appellant did not maintain separate account and inventory of the input services meant for dutiable and exempted final product as per the provision of Rule 6(2) the provisions of Rule 6(3)(b) providing for payment of an amount equal to 10% of sale value of the exempted final product would be applicable - Held that:- w.e.f. 01.03.2008 Rule 6(3) had been amended to give an additional option to a manufacture manufacturing dutiable as well as exempting final product by using common cenvat credit availed input/ input services and this additional option was to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to input/ input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product. The proportionate amount of cenvat credit attributable to the input/ input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product was to be calculated as per the formula prescribed in Rule 6(3A). By Finance Act, 2010, the above provisions were made retrospectively applicable. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in case of Sh. Rama Multitech Ltd. vs UOI reported in [2011 (2) TMI 575 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] has held that even if a separate account have not been maintained, in view of retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2010, a manufacturer using common inputs in or in relation to manufacture of dutiable as well as exempted final product would be entitled to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit. In view of this position, during the period of dispute the option of paying an amount equal to 10% of the sale value of the exempted goods cannot be forced upon the appellant and the appellant would be entitled to reverse the cenvat credit attributable to the inputs/ input services used in or in relation to the manufacture of the exempted final product. - In view of the retrospective amendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010, the appellant were entitled to reverse the proportionate cenvat credit attributable to the quantum of input services used in or in relation to manufacture of exempted final product and by foregoing this credit, they have complied with this obligation. In view of this the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2324
  

  Valuation - Inclusion of expenditure in developing the art work and plate making charges - Held that:- The main contention of the appellant is that the art work and plate making charges wherever they have raised in the form of debit note are pertaining to the cases wherein no manufacturing has taken place and it is for this reason that they have raised the debit note on the customer to recover the expenses incurred by them. We find force in the contention of the appellant inasmuch as the appellant is taking this stand from the time of audit. We also note that revenue has not investigated the explanation of the appellant by contacting the customers or at least ask the appellant to get the explanation from the customer. The art work and plate making as such are not excisable activities and these will form part of the assessable value only if the same are used in the manufacture of laminated tubes. Keeping in view the overall factual matrix, we are of the view that no case is made to indicate that such art work/plates were used in the manufacture of laminated tubes and value of such artwork/plates was not included in the value of laminated tubes. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2323
  

  Maintainability of appeal - Monetary limit - Held that:- Impugned order was passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) under Section 35A which is specified under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B. In view of Second proviso to Section 35B (1), this Tribunal has discretion to refuse of to admit the appeal in respect of order referred to clause (b) or Clause (c) or clause (d) where amount of duty, amount of fine or penalty determined by such order does not exceed ₹ 50,000/-(before 6/8/2014) and ₹ 2 Lakhs (on or after 6/8/2014). - appeal is dismissed only on the ground that amount is below threshold limit of ₹ 50,000/- without going into merit of the case. - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2322
  

  Denial of CENVAT Credit - Bogus invoices - Non receipt of actual goods - Held that:- manufacturer of inputs is not M/s. Jay Aay Alloys but is Ruby Stnps Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Bee Cee Steels. No investigation are conducted at then end. Further, the statement of M/s. Sidh Balak Enterprises is only in respect of manufacturer M/s. Jay Aay Alloys. He has also not named the present manufacturing unit in his statement. As such, there is virtually nothing on record to show that the goods have not travelled from the concerned manufacturer to the appellant - Tribunal in the case of M/s. Talson Mill Store vs. CCE Ludhiana [2014 (2) TMI 443 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has set aside the identical confirmation of demand. Accordingly by following the said order I set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and imposing penalty on all the appellants. - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2283
  

  Short payment of excise duty - Interest u/s 11AB - Held that:- After the issuance of show cause notice, Order-in-Original was passed. However, the High Court set aside the Order-in-Original relying upon the judgment in the case of 'CCE, Mangalore v. Sri Krishna Pipes Industries Limited [2004 (1) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE]. - As a result, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the interest which is levied upon the respondent-assessee is maintained - Decided in favour of Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2282
  

  Valuation of goods - manufacture, clearance and quantification of the product Kalogen Brill 3K - Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- As regards the product Kalsol/Solvent KG, the assessee had classified the same under T.I.68 and had claimed full exemption from payment of Central Excise duty quoting Notification No. 179/77 dated 18.06.1977 as amended by Notification No. 74/83 dated 01.03.1983 contending that the said product was being manufactured without the aid of power. The classification list and price list appeared to have been duly approved of by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Pune IV, Division Pune. - Tribunal has discussed in detail all the intricacies and has arrived at the finding that the order of the Commissioner is based on certain assumptions and presumptions which are not found from the records. - Findings are pure findings of facts after due consideration of the entire material on record. We do not find any reason to disturb the same - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2281
  

  Valuation of goods - whether the installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises and values thereof can be added/included for determining the assessable value - Held that:- On the facts of this case, while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the CESTAT has relied upon the judgments of this court in 'PSI Data System Ltd. v. Collector' [1996 (12) TMI 47 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], 'Mittal Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector' [1996 (11) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], holding that inclusion of installation, erection and commissioning charges for equipment installed at customer's premises cannot be added/ included to determine the assessable value. - This is obvious conclusion on reading of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act as per which the transaction value is to be arrived at at the time of clearance of the goods at the factory gate. All the expenses which are incurred post clearance (that too, after the supply of equipment) in respect of installation, etc., could not have been taken into consideration in the facts of the present case as noted by the CESTAT. - No merit in appeal - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (10) TMI 2280
  

  Duty demand - Manufacture - repacking of lubricating oil into smaller pack - Held that:- mere repacking of the lubricating oil into smaller pack does not amount to manufacture under the old provision and the position changed only after insertion of note w.e.f. 1.3.2000 - Finding of Tribunal in impugned order [2005 (5) TMI 174 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] is correct. - Decided against Revenue.

  ---

123456789........ 53